Horton

Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
To: Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>, Jim Nasby <jim@nasby.net>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2014-11-13T21:23:41Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 11/12/14 7:31 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Yes, it sucks. But it beats not being able to reindex a relation with a
> primary key (referenced by a fkey) without waiting several hours by a
> couple magnitudes. And that's the current situation.

That's fine, but we have, for better or worse, defined CONCURRENTLY :=
does not take exclusive locks.  Use a different adverb for an in-between
facility.

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