On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 06:56:48AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2019-Oct-17, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> pgstat_progress_end_command() is done for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY after
>> the concurrent drop, so it made sense to me to still report any PID
>> REINDEX CONC is waiting for at this stage.
>
> Yeah, okay. So let's talk about your proposed new comment. First,
> there are two spots where WaitForLockers is called in index_drop and
> you're proposing to patch the second one. I think we should patch the
> first one and reference that one from the second one. I propose
> something like this (sorry for crude pasting):
>
> <comments>
What you are proposing here sounds fine to me. Perhaps you would
prefer to adjust the code yourself?
--
Michael