On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 09:25:53PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Actually I think you're wrong; if I put it before the check, then if I
> do "drop index concurrently some_temp_partitioned_index" then it would
> fail; but if I put it after the check, then it does a normal
> non-concurrent index and it works. I'm not sure it's necessary to break
> a case that otherwise works ...
Hmm. Right. I agree that it would be better to not break that case.
And it means that there is a gap in the regression tests here, so I'd
like to add a test. Please see the attached to achieve that, which
includes your own code changes and the doc parts (I didn't see a point
in changing the new sentence for temporary relations as the follow-up
<para> mentions that).
> (But for that to work I need to test the flag in the bitmask rather than
> the option in the command, as in the attached).
Make sense.
--
Michael