| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Date: | 2013-01-24 18:34:33 |
| Message-ID: | 20130124183433.GB19870@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 01:29:56PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > Andres Freund escribió:
> >> I somewhat dislike the fact that CONCURRENTLY isn't really concurrent
> >> here (for the listeners: swapping the indexes acquires exlusive locks) ,
> >> but I don't see any other naming being better.
> >
> > REINDEX ALMOST CONCURRENTLY?
>
> I'm kind of unconvinced of the value proposition of this patch. I
> mean, you can DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY and CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY
> today, so ... how is this better?
This has been on the TODO list for a while, and I don't think the
renaming in a transaction work needed to use drop/create is really
something we want to force on users. In addition, doing that for all
tables in a database is even more work, so I would be disappointed _not_
to get this feature in 9.3.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2013-01-24 18:37:17 | Re: logical changeset generation v4 - Heikki's thoughts about the patch state |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-01-24 18:29:56 | Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |