I wrote:
> I'm a bit inclined to think that DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY should have an
> additional step that somehow marks the pg_index row in a new way that
> makes RelationGetIndexList ignore it, and then wait out existing
> transactions before taking the final step of dropping the index. The
> Right Way to do this would likely have been to add another bool column,
> but we don't have that option anymore in 9.2. Maybe we could abuse
> indcheckxmin somehow, ie use a state that can't otherwise occur (in
> combination with the values of indisvalid/indisready) to denote an index
> being dropped.
I looked into this some more. There are currently three possible states
of the indisvalid/indisready flags:
indisvalid = false, indisready = false
initial state during CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY; this shouldresult in sessions honoring the index for HOT-safety
decisions,butnot using it for searches or insertions
indisvalid = false, indisready = true
sessions should now insert into the index, but not use itfor searches
indisvalid = true, indisready = true
normal, fully valid index
Either state of indcheckxmin is valid with all three of these
combinations, so the specific kluge I was contemplating above doesn't
work. But there is no valid reason for an index to be in this state:
indisvalid = true, indisready = false
I suggest that to fix this for 9.2, we could abuse these flags by
defining that combination as meaning "ignore this index completely",
and having DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY set this state during its final
wait before removing the index.
Obviously, an additional flag column would be a much cleaner fix,
and I think we should add one in HEAD. But it's too late to do
that in 9.2.
regards, tom lane
