On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 06:45:36PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Yeah. CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY has always had a deadlock hazard, > so it's hardly surprising that REINDEX CONCURRENTLY does too. > I don't think that fixing that is in-scope for v12, even if we had > an idea how to do it, which we don't.
The most straight-forward approach I can think of would be to determine if non-transactional commands taking a lock on a table can be safely skipped or not when checking for older snapshots than the minimum where the index is marked as valid. That's quite complex to target v12, so I agree to keep it out of the stability work. > We do need to fix the wrong-lock-level problem of course, but > that seems straightforward. Sure. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
