On 2012-12-11 15:23:52 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > > 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? > > Yeah... and also, why do you think that? I thought the idea that we > could do any such thing had been convincingly refuted. > > Frankly, I think that if REINDEX CONCURRENTLY is just shorthand for > "CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY with a different name and then DROP INDEX > CONCURRENTLY on the old name", it's barely worth doing. People can do > that already, and do, and then we don't have to explain the wart that > the name changes under you.
Its fundamentally different in that you can do it with constraints referencing the index present. And that it works with toast tables. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
