Horton

Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Sergei Kornilov <sk@zsrv.org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: 2019-01-17T01:16:38Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 02:59:31PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> That's my opinion too, but I was outvoted in another subthread -- see
> https://postgr.es/m/20181214144529.wvmjwmy7wxgmgyb3@alvherre.pgsql
> Stephen Frost, Andrew Gierth and Andres Freund all voted to put
> CONCURRENTLY outside the parens.  It seems we now have three votes to
> put it *in* the parens (you, Peter Eisentraut, me).  I guess more votes
> are needed to settle this issue.

Sure, let's see.  I would have been in the crowd of not using
parenthetised grammar five years ago, but the recent deals with other
commands worry me, as we would repeat the same errors.

> My opinion is that if we had had parenthesized options lists back when
> CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY was invented, we would have put it there.
> But we were young and needed the money ...

:)
--
Michael

Commits

  1. Prevent reindex of invalid indexes on TOAST tables

  2. Rework handling of invalid indexes with REINDEX CONCURRENTLY

  3. Split builtins.h to a new header ruleutils.h