Re: Importance of re-index

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com>
Cc: John Sidney-Woollett <johnsw(at)wardbrook(dot)com>, pgsql general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Importance of re-index
Date: 2006-08-03 23:03:12
Message-ID: 27345.1154646192@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> writes:
> Reindex was originally
> designed to fix broken indexes, and, at least in earlier encarnations,
> should something stop it in the middle of reindexing I believe it is
> possible to be left with no index.

That was once true but these days reindex is perfectly crash-safe. The
only case where it's not is where you want to reindex a shared catalog's
index (eg one of pg_database's), and we don't let you do that in
multiuser mode anyway.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Fuhr 2006-08-04 00:18:21 Re: Create function problem
Previous Message Ron Johnson 2006-08-03 22:56:33 Re: Importance of re-index