Re: concurrent index builds unneeded lock?

Theo Schlossnagle <jesus@omniti.com> writes:
> I would think it would be txns that would be reading that table, but  
> I'm thinking it is a bit to aggressive.  Am I reading the code wrong  
> there?  I'm thinking it should be more selective about vxids it  
> chooses to block on.  I'd expect it to block on vxids touching the  
> same table only.

There is no way to know whether a currently active vxid will try to look
at the other table later.  We can not just ignore this case...
        regards, tom lane