| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Date: | 2012-12-10 22:18:53 |
| Message-ID: | 50C65FCD.9030500@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/8/12 9:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm tempted to propose that REINDEX CONCURRENTLY simply not try to
> preserve the index name exactly. Something like adding or removing
> trailing underscores would probably serve to generate a nonconflicting
> name that's not too unsightly.
If you think you can rename an index without an exclusive lock, then why
not rename it back to the original name when you're done?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-12-10 22:21:21 | Re: [SPAM?]: Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Previous Message | Marti Raudsepp | 2012-12-10 22:17:11 | [PATCH] pg_upgrade -o/-O regression in 9.2.2 |