Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 17:34, Christopher Browne wrote:
>> Not surprising either. While the reindex takes place, updates to that
>> table have to be deferred.
> Right, but that's no reason not to let SELECTs proceed, for example.
What if said SELECTs are using the index in question?
I suspect it is true that REINDEX locks more than it needs to, but we
should tread carefully about loosening it.
regards, tom lane