From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Should I implement DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY? |
Date: | 2012-02-01 17:18:59 |
Message-ID: | CA+U5nM+c0ZZ9PB+fNh+MJT+4+_QUJb9xMk_woZ2OzbzjBM0s1A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 2:56 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I improved the grammar issues in the attached version of the patch -
> the syntax is now simpler and more consistent, IF EXISTS now works,
> and RESTRICT is accepted (without changing the behavior) while CASCADE
> fails with a nicer error message. I also fixed a bug in
> RangeVarCallbackForDropRelation.
Plus tests as well. Many thanks.
I fixed the main bug you observed and your test case now works
perfectly. I used pgbench to continuously drop/create an index, so a
little more than manual testing.
v5 Attached.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
drop_index_concurrently.v5.patch | text/x-diff | 27.6 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-02-01 17:23:45 | Re: Confusing EXPLAIN output in case of inherited tables |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-02-01 16:28:50 | Re: JSON for PG 9.2 |