Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: 2013-01-23 18:45:11
Message-ID: 20130123184511.GH4249@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund escribió:

> I somewhat dislike the fact that CONCURRENTLY isn't really concurrent
> here (for the listeners: swapping the indexes acquires exlusive locks) ,
> but I don't see any other naming being better.

REINDEX ALMOST CONCURRENTLY?

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gavin Flower 2013-01-23 18:53:41 Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2013-01-23 18:44:03 Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)