Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Namely, that when reindexing an
>> existing index, there cannot be any need to advance the index's
>> indcheckxmin horizon.
> Note that if isvalid is not set then we don't know anything about the
> hot chains since the concurrent index build never finished.
Hmm, good point. We can probably handle this by tweaking the logic in
reindex_index that changes indisvalid so that it will force indcheckxmin
on when indisvalid had been false and there were any possibly-broken
HOT chains.
regards, tom lane