Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY

On 12/8/12 9:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm tempted to propose that REINDEX CONCURRENTLY simply not try to
> preserve the index name exactly.  Something like adding or removing
> trailing underscores would probably serve to generate a nonconflicting
> name that's not too unsightly.

If you think you can rename an index without an exclusive lock, then why
not rename it back to the original name when you're done?