On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 01:29:56PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > Andres Freund escribió:
> >> I somewhat dislike the fact that CONCURRENTLY isn't really concurrent
> >> here (for the listeners: swapping the indexes acquires exlusive locks) ,
> >> but I don't see any other naming being better.
> >
> > REINDEX ALMOST CONCURRENTLY?
>
> I'm kind of unconvinced of the value proposition of this patch. I
> mean, you can DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY and CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY
> today, so ... how is this better?
This has been on the TODO list for a while, and I don't think the
renaming in a transaction work needed to use drop/create is really
something we want to force on users. In addition, doing that for all
tables in a database is even more work, so I would be disappointed _not_
to get this feature in 9.3.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +