Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se>,
Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
Date: 2017-03-05T18:56:55Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: > I agree that'd it be nicer not to have this, but not having the feature at all is a lot worse than this wart. I, again, give that a firm "maybe". If the warts end up annoying 1% of the users who try to use this feature, then you're right. If they end up making a substantial percentage of people who try to use this feature give up on it, then we've added a bunch of complexity and future code maintenance for little real gain. I'm not ruling out the possibility that you're 100% correct, but I'm not nearly as convinced of that as you are. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Commits
-
Prevent reindex of invalid indexes on TOAST tables
- 8bca5f93547c 12.3 landed
- 61d7c7bce368 13.0 landed
-
Rework handling of invalid indexes with REINDEX CONCURRENTLY
- a6dcf9df4d91 12.0 landed
-
Split builtins.h to a new header ruleutils.h
- 7b1c2a0f2066 9.5.0 cited