Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Also, now that we have concurrent CREATE INDEX, we could implement 
>> concurrent REINDEX as well, I believe.
> That's probably more easily said than done --- in particular, I don't
> understand what the committed state after the first transaction would
> look like.  CREATE INDEX can get away with it because nothing need be
> depending on the new index, but you can't say that for an existing index
> (esp. if it's UNIQUE).

I think you build a whole new index named something like ".temp-reindex" and
then as the last step of the second transaction delete the old idnex and
rename the new index.

  Gregory Stark

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Reply via email to