| From: | Gavin Flower <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: | 2013-01-23 18:53:41 |
| Message-ID: | 510031B5.8010606@archidevsys.co.nz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 24/01/13 07:45, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Andres Freund escribió:
>
>> I somewhat dislike the fact that CONCURRENTLY isn't really concurrent
>> here (for the listeners: swapping the indexes acquires exlusive locks) ,
>> but I don't see any other naming being better.
> REINDEX ALMOST CONCURRENTLY?
>
REINDEX BEST EFFORT CONCURRENTLY?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2013-01-23 18:56:09 | Re: pg_ctl idempotent option |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2013-01-23 18:45:11 | Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |