On August 25, 2014 10:35:20 PM CEST, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 3:48 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> >wrote: >> > On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Sawada Masahiko ><sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> this might be difficult to call this as --concurrently. >> >> It might need to be change the name. >> > >> > I'm OK to say that as --concurrently if the document clearly >> > explains that restriction. Or --almost-concurrently? ;P >> By reading that I am thinking as well about a wording with "lock", >> like --minimum-locks. > >Why not just finish up the REINDEX CONCURRENTLY patch.
+many. Although I'm not sure if we managed to find a safe relation swap. If not: How about adding ALTER INDEX ... SWAP which requires an exclusive lock but is fast and O(1)? Than all indexes can be created concurrently, swapped in a very short xact, and then dropped concurrently? 95% of all users would be happy with that and the remaining 5 would still be in a better position than today where the catalog needs to be hacked for that (fkeys, pkeys et al). --- Please excuse brevity and formatting - I am writing this on my mobile phone. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
