| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [SPAM?]: Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Date: | 2012-12-10 22:21:21 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nM+Eq-wV0hO4aNqN=8dK1hS3pkH5tN4m=+w9pgmPY_2zcw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10 December 2012 22:18, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On 12/8/12 9:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm tempted to propose that REINDEX CONCURRENTLY simply not try to
>> preserve the index name exactly. Something like adding or removing
>> trailing underscores would probably serve to generate a nonconflicting
>> name that's not too unsightly.
>
> If you think you can rename an index without an exclusive lock, then why
> not rename it back to the original name when you're done?
Because the index isn't being renamed. An alternate equivalent index
is being created instead.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-12-10 22:27:45 | Re: [SPAM?]: Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-12-10 22:18:53 | Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |