"Gregory Stark" <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>
>> AFAICS, the whole indcreatexid and validForTxn business is a waste of
>> code. By the time CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY is ready to set indisvalid,
>> surely any transactions that could see the broken HOT chains are gone.
>> There might have been some reason for this contraption before we had
>> plan invalidation, but what use is it now?
>
> Argh, sorry, rereading your message I see there are a few details which I
> missed which completely change the meaning of it. Ignore my previous mail :(
In answer to the real question you were actually asking, I believe you're
correct that CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY should never need to set indcreatexid.
Only regular non-concurrent CREATE INDEX needs to protect against that
problem.
-- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
