Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Yeah. I think the correct logic is roughly this: When considering if a
> candidate item has a locking conflict with a running item, then if
> *either* of them has a locking dependency that coincides with *any*
> dependency of the other item, then the candidate is rejected. The
> principle is that we don't give any item a chance to block on a lock.
Doesn't that eliminate any chance of running two CREATE INDEXes
concurrently on the same table?
regards, tom lane