Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 17:34, Christopher Browne wrote:
>> Not surprising either.  While the reindex takes place, updates to that
>> table have to be deferred.

> Right, but that's no reason not to let SELECTs proceed, for example.

What if said SELECTs are using the index in question?

I suspect it is true that REINDEX locks more than it needs to, but we
should tread carefully about loosening it.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to