On 2025-Mar-07, Álvaro Herrera wrote: > I tested this, because of a refactoring suggestion [1] and I find that > it's rather completely broken.
I think we need significantly more complex scheduling code if we want this to actually work, possibly even having to hack the ParallelSlot API some, so that we can inspect which tables have a running reindex and know not to schedule the next one on it. What we're doing now makes no sense. We should strike this out from the list of features of 17 and revert this commit. If we want this feature in 19, we need another go through the drawing board. (There's clearly not enough time to do it for 18.) -- Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
