Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY

Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On 2012/12/10, at 18:28, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> If I have to choose between (1) keeping the same name OR (2) avoiding
>> an AccessExclusiveLock then I would choose (2). Most other people
>> would also, especially when all we would do is add/remove an
>> underscore. Even if that is user visible. And if it is we can support
>> a LOCK option that does (1) instead.

> Ok. Removing the switch name part is only deleting 10 lines of code in index_concurrent_swap.
> Then, do you guys have a preferred format for the concurrent index name? For the time being an inelegant _cct suffix is used. The underscore at the end?

You still need to avoid conflicting name assignments, so my
recommendation would really be to use the select-a-new-name code already
in use for CREATE INDEX without an index name. The underscore idea is
cute, but I doubt it's worth the effort to implement, document, or
explain it in a way that copes with repeated REINDEXes and conflicts.

regards, tom lane