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?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company