Message-ID: <3c731352-3fbc-c98e-11af-ef5075de584e@proxel.se>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2023 13:04:25 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.12.0
Subject: Re: Does a cancelled REINDEX CONCURRENTLY need to be messy?
Content-Language: en-US
To: Thom Brown <thom@linux.com>,
 PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
References: <CAA-aLv4BZZSGpQVnEmY6oQQzBwFFF9ogMh5LXvx5Q_Wa10p=Rg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se>
In-Reply-To: <CAA-aLv4BZZSGpQVnEmY6oQQzBwFFF9ogMh5LXvx5Q_Wa10p=Rg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3c731352-3fbc-c98e-11af-ef5075de584e%40proxel.se>
Precedence: bulk

On 6/29/23 11:13, Thom Brown wrote:
> I get the feeling that this is deliberate, and perhaps an attempt to
> mitigate locking issues, or some other explanation, but the rationale
> isn't immediately apparent to me if this is the case.

I have always assumed the reason is that there might be other 
transactions using the index so if we are going to drop it on rollback 
we might get stuck forever waiting for an exclusive lock on the index. 
How do you get around that? Rollback being stuck waiting forever is 
certainly not a nice behavior.

Andreas