On 2012-12-11 15:23:52 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> > On 12/8/12 9:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I'm tempted to propose that REINDEX CONCURRENTLY simply not try to
> >> preserve the index name exactly. Something like adding or removing
> >> trailing underscores would probably serve to generate a nonconflicting
> >> name that's not too unsightly.
> > If you think you can rename an index without an exclusive lock, then why
> > not rename it back to the original name when you're done?
> Yeah... and also, why do you think that? I thought the idea that we
> could do any such thing had been convincingly refuted.
> Frankly, I think that if REINDEX CONCURRENTLY is just shorthand for
> "CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY with a different name and then DROP INDEX
> CONCURRENTLY on the old name", it's barely worth doing. People can do
> that already, and do, and then we don't have to explain the wart that
> the name changes under you.
Its fundamentally different in that you can do it with constraints
referencing the index present. And that it works with toast tables.
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Kevin Grittner||Date: 2012-12-11 20:38:28|
|Subject: Re: autovacuum truncate exclusive lock round two|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2012-12-11 20:24:28|
|Subject: Re: pg_upgrade problem with invalid indexes|