Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> ...but that begs the question of why DROP INDEX needs an
> AccessExclusiveLock. It probably needs such a lock *on the index* but
> I don't see why we'd need it on the table.
Some other session might be in process of planning a query on the table.
It would be sad if the index it had chosen turned out to have vanished
meanwhile. You could perhaps confine DROP INDEX's ex-lock to the index,
but only at the price of making the planner take out a lock on every
index it considers even transiently. Which isn't going to be a net
improvement.
(While we're on the subject, I have strong suspicions that most of what
Simon did this cycle on ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction is
hopelessly broken and will have to be reverted. It's on my to-do list
to try to break that patch during beta, and I expect to succeed.)
regards, tom lane
