On 2022-05-30 22:40:39 +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2022-May-30, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > On 2022-05-30 15:54:08 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > > Yeah, I agree that we'd better revert c98763bf for the time being.
> > > And f9900df on top of that?
> >
> > Well, f9900df needs to be reverted, because it caused the problem at hand, and
> > is ontop of c98763bf...
>
> I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. I understood that
> both RIC and CIC are affected, so the reversal is of the following
> commits:
I was just a bit confused about Michael's phrasing of reverting f9900df "on
top of" c98763bf. Not important...
> c98763bf51bf Avoid spurious waits in concurrent indexing
> f9900df5f949 Avoid spurious wait in concurrent reindex
> d9d076222f5b VACUUM: ignore indexing operations with CONCURRENTLY
That looks right, yes.
Greetings,
Andres Freund