Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(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: 2014-11-12 21:10:56
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZtd=sa8LD0tnWgRDzx-Zzt_g_FnPf9jtj61z_rbuse6w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> If REINDEX cannot work without an exclusive lock, we should invent some
> other qualifier, like WITH FEWER LOCKS.

What he said.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2014-11-12 21:11:58 Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0
Previous Message Robert Haas 2014-11-12 21:03:40 Re: Error building the EnterpriseDB mysql_fdw on OSX