| From: | Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | John Sidney-Woollett <johnsw(at)wardbrook(dot)com>, pgsql general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Importance of re-index |
| Date: | 2006-08-04 15:00:57 |
| Message-ID: | 1154703657.7882.96.camel@state.g2switchworks.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 18:03, Tom Lane wrote:
> Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> writes:
> > Reindex was originally
> > designed to fix broken indexes, and, at least in earlier encarnations,
> > should something stop it in the middle of reindexing I believe it is
> > possible to be left with no index.
>
> That was once true but these days reindex is perfectly crash-safe. The
> only case where it's not is where you want to reindex a shared catalog's
> index (eg one of pg_database's), and we don't let you do that in
> multiuser mode anyway.
Oh cool! nice to know that's since been fixed.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthew T. O'Connor | 2006-08-04 15:04:03 | Re: PITR Questions |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2006-08-04 14:50:55 | Re: PostgreSQL engagment |