Re: Concurrently option for reindexdb

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Concurrently option for reindexdb
Date: 2014-08-25 20:10:12
Message-ID: CAB7nPqTfDrvyboLi4A+G-7E8ySF556oyiy=aSjqovSBPUy8Ajw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 3:48 AM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> this might be difficult to call this as --concurrently.
>> It might need to be change the name.
>
> I'm OK to say that as --concurrently if the document clearly
> explains that restriction. Or --almost-concurrently? ;P
By reading that I am thinking as well about a wording with "lock",
like --minimum-locks.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2014-08-25 20:15:38 Re: Add CREATE support to event triggers
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2014-08-25 20:06:34 Re: Set new system identifier using pg_resetxlog