Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <> writes:

> > May I suggest
> > +      If <command>CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY</> was used to build an index
> > +      that depends on a column not previously indexed, then rows
> > +      updated by transactions that ran concurrently with
> > +      the <command>CREATE INDEX</> command could have missed receiving
> > +      index entries.
> Can we say "pre-existing rows that were updated by...", or is that
> too optimistic?

Hmm.  Now that I think about it, it is probably possible to have a
transaction started before CIC that inserted a bunch of rows, and then
runs the UPDATE during the CIC race window.  Maybe there's a reason the
bug wouldn't hit in that case but I don't see it, and I'm not able to
test it right now to verify.

> (I fear this is too late for the current set of releases; I don't want
> to make the packagers redo their work just for this.  But we can correct
> it for future wraps.)

I think a large fraction of the readers will grab the release notes from
the website anyway, not their local copies.  And the "press release" is
a source that will get to a large number of readers too.  I think it's
fine not to re-wrap.

Álvaro Herrera      
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to