Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0

On 2017-03-01 19:25:23 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 2/28/17 11:21 AM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> > The only downside I can see to this approach is that we no logner will
> > able to reindex catalog tables concurrently, but in return it should be
> > easier to confirm that this approach can be made work.
> 
> Another downside is any stored regclass fields will become invalid.
> Admittedly that's a pretty unusual use case, but it'd be nice if there was
> at least a way to let users fix things during the rename phase (perhaps via
> an event trigger).

I'm fairly confident that we don't want to invoke event triggers inside
the CIC code...  I'm also fairly confident that between index oids
stored somewhere being invalidated - what'd be a realistic use case of
that - and not having reindex concurrently, just about everyone will
choose the former.

Regards,

Andres