Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([2a02:16a8:dc51::56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1fkc97-0007lw-NG for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 21:25:33 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1fkc96-0004hN-4K for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 21:25:32 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1fkc95-0004hG-Ta for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 21:25:31 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1fkc93-0000oM-7w for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 21:25:31 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w6VLPIKt010679; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 17:25:18 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Peter Eisentraut cc: Robert Haas , Andrey Klychkov , Victor Yegorov , PostgreSQL Hackers Subject: Re: Alter index rename concurrently to In-reply-to: References: <1531767486.432607658@f357.i.mail.ru> <1531828116.497549417@f411.i.mail.ru> <6cf6b35f-b730-60fc-bab7-82699dca59ed@2ndquadrant.com> Comments: In-reply-to Peter Eisentraut message dated "Tue, 31 Jul 2018 23:10:28 +0200" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <10677.1533072318.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2018 17:25:18 -0400 Message-ID: <10678.1533072318@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 27/07/2018 16:16, Robert Haas wrote: >> I also suspect that an appropriate fix might be to ensure that >> AcceptInvalidationMessages() is run at least once at the beginning of >> parse analysis. > Why don't we just do that? Don't we do that already? Certainly it should get run in advance of any relation name lookup. There is one at transaction start also, if memory serves. regards, tom lane