| From: | Andreas Kretschmer <andreas(at)a-kretschmer(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: REINDEX in tables |
| Date: | 2023-10-25 09:33:11 |
| Message-ID: | aa6471fb-f709-9574-246a-f3531453b638@a-kretschmer.de |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Am 25.10.23 um 11:24 schrieb Matthias Apitz:
> We have a client who run REINDEX in certain tables of the database of
> our application (on Linux with PostgreSQL 13.x):
>
> REINDEX TABLE CONCURRENTLY d83last;
> REINDEX TABLE CONCURRENTLY d86plz;
> REINDEX TABLE CONCURRENTLY ig_memtable;
> REINDEX TABLE CONCURRENTLY ig_dictionary;
> REINDEX TABLE CONCURRENTLY ig_dictionary;
> REINDEX TABLE CONCURRENTLY d50zweig ;
> REINDEX TABLE CONCURRENTLY d50zweig ;
>
> We as the software vendor and support, do not use or recommend this
> procedure, because we have own SQL files for creating or deleting
> indices in the around 400 tables.
>
> The client is now concerned about the issue that the number of
> rows in some of the above tables has increased. Is this possible?
In principle, there is nothing wrong with doing this in a maintenance
window, for example.
Regards, Andreas
--
Andreas Kretschmer - currently still (garden leave)
Technical Account Manager (TAM)
www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ron | 2023-10-25 09:35:46 | Re: setting up streaming replication, part 2 |
| Previous Message | Matthias Apitz | 2023-10-25 09:24:02 | REINDEX in tables |