Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2019-11-13 10:59:08 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It's not real clear why there would be any point in (RE)INDEX
>> CONCURRENTLY on a temp table anyway, since no other session could
>> be using it.
> I guess it's not necessarily always clear in all contexts that one is
> dealing with a temp table, rather than a normal table.
That's a good point.
> I wonder if we instead ought to just ignore the CONCURRENTLY when
> targetting a temp table? That'd be a correct optimization for temp
> tables, and would fix the issue at hand...
Oh, I like that idea. Keeps applications from having to think
about this.
regards, tom lane