Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: 2012-12-10 22:18:53
Message-ID: 50C65FCD.9030500@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2012-12-10 22:21:21 Re: [SPAM?]: Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY
Previous Message Marti Raudsepp 2012-12-10 22:17:11 [PATCH] pg_upgrade -o/-O regression in 9.2.2