On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 08:16:11PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > Yes. Being able to do this is useful for several reasons. For example, > it's useful to be able to create a new, equivalent index before > dropping the original when the original is bloated. (You could use > REINDEX instead, but that has some disadvantages that you might want > to avoid.)
REINDEX CONCURRENTLY recently added to v12 relies on that heavily actually, so as you can finish with the same index definition twice in the state of swapping both index definitions. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
