Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 17:27:34 -0300
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=C1lvaro?= Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>,
	Hamid Akhtar <hamid.akhtar@gmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: {CREATE INDEX, REINDEX} CONCURRENTLY improvements
Message-ID: <20210118202734.GA25753@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAEze2Wh4zbYpixex7dbRJKPGKincVeopRtrA2jZzfRFjerooQQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On 2021-Jan-18, Matthias van de Meent wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 15:29, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:

> Would this not need to be the following? Right now, it resets
> potentially older h->catalog_oldest_nonremovable (which is set in the
> PROC_IN_SAFE_IC branch).
> 
> > +            if (statusFlags & PROC_IN_SAFE_IC)
> > +                h->catalog_oldest_nonremovable =
> > +                    TransactionIdOlder(h->catalog_oldest_nonremovable, xmin);
> > +            else
> > +            {
> > +                h->data_oldest_nonremovable =
> > +                    TransactionIdOlder(h->data_oldest_nonremovable, xmin);
> > +                h->catalog_oldest_nonremovable =
> > +                    TransactionIdOlder(h->catalog_oldest_nonremovable, xmin);
> > +            }

Oops, you're right.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera       Valdivia, Chile