Horton
Menu

Re: [SPAM?]: Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY

Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>

View thread
From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2012-12-10T22:21:21Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 10 December 2012 22:18, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> 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?

Because the index isn't being renamed. An alternate equivalent index
is being created instead.

-- 
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

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.