Re: [doc] minor fix for CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY

From: Frédéric Yhuel <frederic(dot)yhuel(at)dalibo(dot)com>
To: Mihail Nikalayeu <mihailnikalayeu(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [doc] minor fix for CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY
Date: 2025-07-10 08:18:47
Message-ID: 633ffd9f-a2f1-45b8-8a2e-5d5afd52ec67@dalibo.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 7/9/25 16:30, Frédéric Yhuel wrote:
>
>
> On 7/9/25 16:06, Mihail Nikalayeu wrote:
>> Hello!
>>
>> No, I think the comment is correct, it is about [0].
>>
>> [0]: https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/
>> f5a987c0e5f6bbf0cc0420228dc57e7aae4d7e8f/src/backend/commands/
>> indexcmds.c#L4217
>
> Aaahhh... yes, you're right! thanks!
>
>

Come to think of it, shouldn't it be that instead?

"and in addition it must wait for all existing transactions that modify
the indexed table, and for those that could potentially modify or use
the index to terminate."

I think the first set isn't included in the second one, as long as the
default isolation level is READ COMMITTED.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bertrand Drouvot 2025-07-10 08:21:56 Re: Adding wait events statistics
Previous Message Peter Smith 2025-07-10 07:51:11 Re: [WIP]Vertical Clustered Index (columnar store extension) - take2