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

  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