Re: Alter index rename concurrently to

Hi,

On 2018-08-02 15:57:13 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 3:36 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> >> Right.  If nobody sees a reason not to change that, I think we should.
> >> It would make the behavior more predictable with, I hope, no real
> >> loss.
> >
> > What precisely are you proposing?
> 
> Inserting AcceptInvalidationMessages() in some location that
> guarantees it will be executed at least once per SQL statement.  I
> tentatively propose the beginning of parse_analyze(), but I am open to
> suggestions.

I'm inclined to think that that doesn't really actually solve anything,
but makes locking issues harder to find, because the window is smaller,
but decidedly non-zero.  Can you describe why this'd make things more
"predictable" precisely?

Greetings,

Andres Freund