Re: Concurrently option for reindexdb

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:46 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On August 25, 2014 10:35:20 PM CEST, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>>Why not just finish up the REINDEX CONCURRENTLY patch.

+1

> +many. Although I'm not sure if we managed to find a safe relation swap.

That safe relation swap is possible if an AccessExclusive lock is taken. Right?
That means that REINDEX CONCURRENTLY is not completely-concurrently, but
I think that many users are satisfied with even this feature.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao