| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 |
| Date: | 2017-02-27 22:31:21 |
| Message-ID: | 4131.1488234681@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I don't object to the addition of this patch in next CF as this
> presents no new concept. Still per the complications this patch and
> because it is a complicated patch I was wondering if people are fine
> to include it in this last CF.
The March CF is already looking pretty daunting. We can try to include
this but I won't be too surprised if it gets punted to a future CF.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2017-02-27 22:41:18 | Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-02-27 22:19:40 | Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 |