Horton
Menu

Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>

View thread
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2012-12-10T22:18:53Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 12/8/12 9:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm tempted to propose that REINDEX CONCURRENTLY simply not try to
> preserve the index name exactly.  Something like adding or removing
> trailing underscores would probably serve to generate a nonconflicting
> name that's not too unsightly.

If you think you can rename an index without an exclusive lock, then why
not rename it back to the original name when you're done?

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Background worker processes

  2. Fix assorted bugs in CREATE/DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY.

  3. Work around unportable behavior of malloc(0) and realloc(NULL, 0).

  4. Properly set relpersistence for fake relcache entries.