Horton

Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY unexpectedly fails

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Manuel Rigger <rigger.manuel@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2019-11-14T08:08:55Z
Lists: pgsql-bugs 
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 11:45:34AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Oh, I like that idea.  Keeps applications from having to think
> about this.

That's interesting, but I would be on the side of just generating an
error in this case thinking about potential future features like
global temporary tables, and because it could always be relaxed in the
future.

I am actually wondering if we don't have more problems with other
utility commands which spawn multiple transactions...

Any extra opinion?
--
Michael

Commits

  1. Fix concurrent indexing operations with temporary tables