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? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
