| From: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Does a cancelled REINDEX CONCURRENTLY need to be messy? |
| Date: | 2023-07-04 16:59:57 |
| Message-ID: | 20230704165957.vcrqqt7vl6ak77p2@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2023-Jul-04, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 07:46:27PM +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Perhaps we could have autovacuum check for it, and do it
> > separately of vacuum proper.)
>
> Being able to reuse some of the worker/launcher parts from autovacuum
> could make things easier for a bgworker implementation, perhaps?
TBH I don't understand what you are thinking about.
--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"I can see support will not be a problem. 10 out of 10." (Simon Wittber)
(http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2004-12/msg00159.php)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2023-07-04 17:26:55 | Re: On /*----- comments |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2023-07-04 16:52:03 | Re: Add more sanity checks around callers of changeDependencyFor() |