| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Date: | 2012-12-11 20:23:52 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZY01Gm8de7+ZqU5jBZgAX8XFt3-RZqa+y2eX3bF_gXhg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-12-11 20:24:28 | Re: pg_upgrade problem with invalid indexes |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2012-12-11 20:19:34 | Re: pg_upgrade problem with invalid indexes |