Re: Avoiding deadlock errors in CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On June 9, 2019 8:36:37 AM PDT, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I think you are mistaken that doing transactional updates in pg_index
>> is OK.  If memory serves, we rely on xmin of the pg_index row for
>> purposes such as detecting whether a concurrently-created index is safe
>> to use yet.

> We could replace that with storing a 64 xid in a normal column nowadays.

Perhaps, but that's a nontrivial change that'd be prerequisite to
doing what's suggested in this thread.

            regards, tom lane