Re: Does a cancelled REINDEX CONCURRENTLY need to be messy?

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>
To: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>
Cc: 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: 2023-07-06 16:14:53
Message-ID: 6b9437e7-7b0d-f5c9-813c-00709c3111f7@eisentraut.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 03.07.23 19:46, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> Well, I definitely agree that it would be useful to have*something*
> that automatically removes debris

Yeah, like "undo".

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Laurenz Albe 2023-07-06 16:15:56 Re: [PATCH] Add support function for containment operators
Previous Message Daniel Gustafsson 2023-07-06 16:10:28 Re: Add SPLIT PARTITION/MERGE PARTITIONS commands