Re: Alter index rename concurrently to
Corey Huinker <corey.huinker@gmail.com>
From: Corey Huinker <corey.huinker@gmail.com>
To: peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com
Cc: aaklychkov@mail.ru, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, vyegorov@gmail.com
Date: 2018-07-25T23:58:12Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> > You appear to be saying that you think that renaming an index > concurrently is not safe. In that case, this patch should be rejected. > However, I don't think it necessarily is unsafe. What we need is some > reasoning about the impact, not a bunch of different options that we > don't understand. > I've had this same need, and dreamed this same solution before. I also thought about a syntax like ALTER INDEX foo RENAME TO WHATEVER-IT-WOULD-HAVE-BEEN-NAMED-BY-DEFAULT to aid this situation. But all of those needs fade if we have REINDEX CONCURRENTLY. I think that's where we should focus our efforts. A possible side effort into something like a VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY, which would essentially do what pg_repack does, but keeping the same oid and the stats that go with it, but even that's a nice-to-have add-on to REINDEX CONCURRENTLY.
Commits
-
Lower lock level for renaming indexes
- 1b5d797cd4f7 12.0 landed