On Wed, Aug 27, 2025 at 10:22:24AM +0200, Mihail Nikalayeu wrote:
> That worries me - it is not the behaviour someone expects from a
> database by default. At least the warning should be much more visible
> and obvious.
> I think most of user will expect the same guarantees as [CREATE|RE]
> INDEX CONCURRENTLY provides.
Having a unified path for the handling of the waits and the locking
sounds to me like a pretty good argument in favor of a basic
implementation.
In my experience, users do not really care about the time it takes to
complete a operation involving CONCURRENTLY if we allow concurrent
reads and writes in parallel of it. I have not looked at the proposal
in details, but before trying a more folkloric MVCC approach, relying
on basics that we know have been working for some time seems like a
good and sufficient initial step in terms of handling the waits and
the locks with table AMs (aka heap or something else).
Just my 2c.
--
Michael
