Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I don't find this very surprising ... I would suggest using "reindex > > index" for each index instead. I'm not sure if REINDEX TABLE is > > supposed to be deadlock-free. > > It's not guaranteed to be so, but I'd think simple cases would be > okay.
Can we rework REINDEX TABLE so that it processes each index on its own transaction? -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
