On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 01:29:56PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Alvaro Herrera > <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > Andres Freund escribió: > >> I somewhat dislike the fact that CONCURRENTLY isn't really concurrent > >> here (for the listeners: swapping the indexes acquires exlusive locks) , > >> but I don't see any other naming being better. > > > > REINDEX ALMOST CONCURRENTLY? > > I'm kind of unconvinced of the value proposition of this patch. I > mean, you can DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY and CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY > today, so ... how is this better?
This has been on the TODO list for a while, and I don't think the renaming in a transaction work needed to use drop/create is really something we want to force on users. In addition, doing that for all tables in a database is even more work, so I would be disappointed _not_ to get this feature in 9.3. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
