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.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

• Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY at 2012-12-10 22:18:53 from Peter Eisentraut

Responses

• Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY at 2012-12-11 20:27:11 from Andres Freund

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2012-12-11 20:24:28
	Subject: Re: pg_upgrade problem with invalid indexes
Previous:	From: Andres Freund	Date: 2012-12-11 20:19:34
	Subject: Re: pg_upgrade problem with invalid indexes