Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY

From: Gavin Flower <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: 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: 2013-01-23 18:53:41
Message-ID: 510031B5.8010606@archidevsys.co.nz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 24/01/13 07:45, Alvaro Herrera 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?
>

REINDEX BEST EFFORT CONCURRENTLY?

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2013-01-23 18:56:09 Re: pg_ctl idempotent option
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2013-01-23 18:45:11 Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY