On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:46 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > 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.
+1 > +many. Although I'm not sure if we managed to find a safe relation swap. That safe relation swap is possible if an AccessExclusive lock is taken. Right? That means that REINDEX CONCURRENTLY is not completely-concurrently, but I think that many users are satisfied with even this feature. Regards, -- Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
