Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY unexpectedly fails

On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 05:11:08PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I liked Andres' original naming suggestion better FWIW.  With this, one
> wonders "concurrently what?"

I did not like the "creation" part from the original suggestion :)
IndexCreationSupportsConcurrent() called from a place where an index
is dropped does not sound very consistent.

> Some suggestions,
> "RelationSupportsConcurrentIndexing" or
> "IndexSupportsConcurrently".  Maybe replace the "ing" in the first or
> "ly" in the second with "DDL" or "Ops".  (Also, if it's just about
> indexes and appears in index.h, why did you use the prefix "Relation"?)

RelationSupportsConcurrentIndexing sounds like a good compromise to
me.  The reasoning behind using relation is that this check can be
used for an index or its parent relation.
--
Michael