From d2efb90dbad97828838ab356c03927b3dda65070 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Alvaro Herrera Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 07:18:50 -0300 Subject: [PATCH] Update comments about progress reporting by index_drop MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Michaël Paquier complained that index_drop is requesting progress reporting for non-obvious reasons, so let's add a comment to explain why. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20191017010412.GH2602@paquier.xyz --- src/backend/catalog/index.c | 6 +++++- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/src/backend/catalog/index.c b/src/backend/catalog/index.c index 098732cc4a8..c48ad93e28b 100644 --- a/src/backend/catalog/index.c +++ b/src/backend/catalog/index.c @@ -2142,6 +2142,10 @@ index_drop(Oid indexId, bool concurrent, bool concurrent_lock_mode) * possible if one of the transactions in question is blocked trying * to acquire an exclusive lock on our table. The lock code will * detect deadlock and error out properly. + * + * Note: we report progress through WaitForLockers() unconditionally + * here, even though it will only be used when we're called by REINDEX + * CONCURRENTLY and not when called by DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY. */ WaitForLockers(heaplocktag, AccessExclusiveLock, true); @@ -2157,7 +2161,7 @@ index_drop(Oid indexId, bool concurrent, bool concurrent_lock_mode) /* * Wait till every transaction that saw the old index state has - * finished. + * finished. See above about progress reporting. */ WaitForLockers(heaplocktag, AccessExclusiveLock, true);