Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0
Date: 2014-11-13 21:23:41
Message-ID: 5465215D.2060505@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 11/12/14 7:31 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Yes, it sucks. But it beats not being able to reindex a relation with a
> primary key (referenced by a fkey) without waiting several hours by a
> couple magnitudes. And that's the current situation.

That's fine, but we have, for better or worse, defined CONCURRENTLY :=
does not take exclusive locks. Use a different adverb for an in-between
facility.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2014-11-13 21:24:52 Re: tracking commit timestamps
Previous Message Antonin Houska 2014-11-13 21:03:40 Re: array exclusion constraints