Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY unexpectedly fails

Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 11:45:34AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Oh, I like that idea. Keeps applications from having to think
>> about this.

> That's interesting, but I would be on the side of just generating an
> error in this case thinking about potential future features like
> global temporary tables, and because it could always be relaxed in the
> future.

I don't find that very convincing. If there's a reason to throw
error for global temporary tables, let's do it for that case,
but that's no reason to make the user-visible behavior overcomplex
for other cases. It might well be that we can handle global temp
tables the same way anyway (ie, just do a not-CONCURRENTLY reindex
on the session's private instance of the table).

> I am actually wondering if we don't have more problems with other
> utility commands which spawn multiple transactions...

Indeed, but there aren't many of those...

regards, tom lane