| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| 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: | 2013-01-24 18:29:56 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob=wjPNQW6y=o4qw1CbcL9qpLnV=SAjEVqrqgz5VTDpOg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2013-01-24 18:34:33 | Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-01-24 18:29:10 | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |