Обсуждение: "Routine Reindexing" docs should be updated to reference REINDEX CONCURRENTLY

The documentation has a section called "Routine Reindexing", which
explains how to simulate REINDEX CONCURRENTLY with a sequence of
creation and replacement steps. This should be updated to reference
the REINDEX CONCURRENTLY command.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan

On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 01:34:41PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> The documentation has a section called "Routine Reindexing", which
> explains how to simulate REINDEX CONCURRENTLY with a sequence of
> creation and replacement steps. This should be updated to reference
> the REINDEX CONCURRENTLY command.

Agreed, good catch.  I would suggest to remove most of the section and
just replace it with a reference to REINDEX CONCURRENTLY, as per the
attached.  What do you think?
--
Michael

On 2019-04-26 05:05, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 01:34:41PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> The documentation has a section called "Routine Reindexing", which
>> explains how to simulate REINDEX CONCURRENTLY with a sequence of
>> creation and replacement steps. This should be updated to reference
>> the REINDEX CONCURRENTLY command.
> 
> Agreed, good catch.  I would suggest to remove most of the section and
> just replace it with a reference to REINDEX CONCURRENTLY, as per the
> attached.  What do you think?

looks good to me

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 01:34:41PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> The documentation has a section called "Routine Reindexing", which
>> explains how to simulate REINDEX CONCURRENTLY with a sequence of
>> creation and replacement steps. This should be updated to reference
>> the REINDEX CONCURRENTLY command.

> Agreed, good catch.  I would suggest to remove most of the section and
> just replace it with a reference to REINDEX CONCURRENTLY, as per the
> attached.  What do you think?

+1.  Maybe say "... which requires only a
<literal>SHARE UPDATE EXCLUSIVE</literal> lock."

            regards, tom lane

On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 10:53:35AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> +1.  Maybe say "... which requires only a
> <literal>SHARE UPDATE EXCLUSIVE</literal> lock."

Thanks for the review.  Committed with your suggested change.
--
Michael