| From: | Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 |
| Date: | 2019-01-16 16:56:15 |
| Message-ID: | c11e1832-3c3e-c8a2-cdf4-3abc7b7ffdde@proxel.se |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/16/19 9:27 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:> Regarding the grammar, we
tend for the last couple of years to avoid
> complicating the main grammar and move on to parenthesized grammars
> (see VACUUM, ANALYZE, EXPLAIN, etc). So in the same vein I think that
> it would make sense to only support CONCURRENTLY within parenthesis
> and just plugin that with the VERBOSE option.
Personally I do not care, but there have been a lot of voices for
keeping REINDEX CONCURRENTLY consistent with CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY
and DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY.
> Does somebody mind if I jump into the ship after so long? I was the
> original author of the monster after all...
Fine by me. Peter?
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Gierth | 2019-01-16 17:02:07 | parseCheckAggregates vs. assign_query_collations |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2019-01-16 16:44:27 | Re: Prepare Transaction support for ON COMMIT DROP temporary tables |