| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Manuel Rigger <rigger(dot)manuel(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY unexpectedly fails |
| Date: | 2019-12-13 02:47:33 |
| Message-ID: | 20191213024733.GC1942@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 05:11:08PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I liked Andres' original naming suggestion better FWIW. With this, one
> wonders "concurrently what?"
I did not like the "creation" part from the original suggestion :)
IndexCreationSupportsConcurrent() called from a place where an index
is dropped does not sound very consistent.
> Some suggestions,
> "RelationSupportsConcurrentIndexing" or
> "IndexSupportsConcurrently". Maybe replace the "ing" in the first or
> "ly" in the second with "DDL" or "Ops". (Also, if it's just about
> indexes and appears in index.h, why did you use the prefix "Relation"?)
RelationSupportsConcurrentIndexing sounds like a good compromise to
me. The reasoning behind using relation is that this check can be
used for an index or its parent relation.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-12-13 03:45:36 | Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY unexpectedly fails |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2019-12-13 00:16:18 | Re: BUG #16162: create index using gist_trgm_ops leads to panic |