Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> > I don't find this very surprising ... I would suggest using "reindex
> > index" for each index instead. I'm not sure if REINDEX TABLE is
> > supposed to be deadlock-free.
>
> It's not guaranteed to be so, but I'd think simple cases would be
> okay.
Can we rework REINDEX TABLE so that it processes each index on its own
transaction?
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.