Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2021-10-11 14:59:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I doubt we need any code changes beyond changing the indisvalid state.
> I was thinking we'd want to throw an error if an index that's being created is
> accessed during the index build, rather than just not include it in
> planning...
AFAICT we *will* throw an error, just not a very intelligible one.
But until someone's shown another way to reach that error besides
the planner's path, I'm not thinking we need to expend effort on
making the error nicer.
regards, tom lane