| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 |
| Date: | 2014-11-13 01:29:00 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqSUHjNCOnDwPhhxfHWCaqjM-LUqo3D6p3Frz91z2NgzPg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> I don't recall what the problem with just swapping the names was - but
>> I'm pretty sure there was one... Hm. The index relation oids are
>> referred to by constraints and dependencies. That's somewhat
>> solvable. But I think there was something else as well...
> The reason given 2 years ago for not using relname was the fast that
> the oid of the index changes, and to it be refered by some pg_depend
> entries:
Feel free to correct: "and that it could be referred".
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andreas Karlsson | 2014-11-13 01:32:28 | Re: Using 128-bit integers for sum, avg and statistics aggregates |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2014-11-13 01:26:49 | Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 |