On 03/05/2017 07:56 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
I agree that'd it be nicer not to have this, but not having the feature at all 
is a lot worse than this wart.

I, again, give that a firm "maybe".  If the warts end up annoying 1%
of the users who try to use this feature, then you're right.  If they
end up making a substantial percentage of people who try to use this
feature give up on it, then we've added a bunch of complexity and
future code maintenance for little real gain.  I'm not ruling out the
possibility that you're 100% correct, but I'm not nearly as convinced
of that as you are.

I agree that these warts are annoying but I also think the limitations
can be explained pretty easily to users (e.g. by explaining it in the manual how REINDEX CONCURRENTLY creates a new index to replace the old one), and I think that is the important question about if a useful feature with warts should be merged or not. Does it make things substantially harder for the average user to grok?

And I would argue that his feature is useful for quite many, based on my experience running a semi-large database. Index bloat happens and without REINDEX CONCURRENTLY it can be really annoying to solve, especially for primary keys. Certainly more people have problems with index bloat than the number of people who store index oids in their database.


Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to