Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lxWqd-0001GW-El for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 27 Jun 2021 15:37:27 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lxWqc-00041O-0c for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 27 Jun 2021 15:37:26 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lxWqb-00041G-QA for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Sun, 27 Jun 2021 15:37:25 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lxWqV-0002aa-Fr for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Sun, 27 Jun 2021 15:37:25 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 15RFbGHN009239; Sun, 27 Jun 2021 11:37:16 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Michael Paquier cc: Andrey Lepikhov , pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: Assertion on create index concurrently In-reply-to: References: <9b905019-5297-7372-0ad2-e1a4bb66a719@postgrespro.ru> Comments: In-reply-to Michael Paquier message dated "Sun, 27 Jun 2021 10:35:49 +0900" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <9237.1624808236.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 11:37:16 -0400 Message-ID: <9238.1624808236@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Michael Paquier writes: > On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 09:48:45PM +0300, Andrey Lepikhov wrote: >> This problem affects PG 9.6 - 13. The master branch was fixed 9 months ago >> by commit 83158f7, that made this operation transactional, but still. > This looks like a good argument for back-patching 83158f7 all the way > down, as 813fb03 exists since 9.4. Any thoughts from others? +1 ... 83158f7 has survived long enough to have reasonable confidence in it. regards, tom lane