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.
