Re: Another HOT thought: why do we need indcreatexid at all?

"Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:

> "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)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