> On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 03:11:19PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 02:16:46PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > I did not set the flag in REINDEX CONCURRENTLY, but as I understand it > > can be done too, since in essence it's the same thing as a CIC from a > > snapshot management point of view. > > Yes, I see no problems for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY as well as long as > there are no predicates and expressions involved. The transactions > that should be patched are all started in ReindexRelationConcurrently. > The transaction of index_concurrently_swap() cannot set up that > though. Only thing to be careful is to make sure that safe_flag is > correct depending on the list of indexes worked on.
Hi, After looking through the thread and reading the patch it seems good, and there are only few minor questions: * Doing the same for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY, which does make sense. In fact it's already mentioned in the commentaries as done, which a bit confusing. * Naming, to be more precise what suggested Michael: > Could we consider renaming vacuumFlags? With more flags associated to > a PGPROC entry that are not related to vacuum, the current naming > makes things confusing. Something like statusFlags could fit better > in the picture? which sounds reasonable, and similar one about flag name PROC_IN_SAFE_CIC - if it covers both CREATE INDEX/REINDEX CONCURRENTLY maybe just PROC_IN_SAFE_IC? Any plans about those questions? I can imagine that are the only missing parts.
