Hello Thank you! I review new patch version. It applied, builds and pass tests. Code looks good, but i notice new behavior notes:
> postgres=# reindex (verbose) table CONCURRENTLY measurement ; > WARNING: REINDEX of partitioned tables is not yet implemented, skipping > "measurement" > NOTICE: table "measurement" has no indexes > REINDEX > postgres=# \d measurement > Partitioned table "public.measurement" > Column | Type | Collation | Nullable | Default > -----------+---------+-----------+----------+--------- > city_id | integer | | not null | > logdate | date | | not null | > peaktemp | integer | | | > unitsales | integer | | | > Partition key: RANGE (logdate) > Indexes: > "measurement_logdate_idx" btree (logdate) > Number of partitions: 0 NOTICE seems unnecessary here. Unfortunally concurrenttly reindex loses comments, reproducer: > create table testcomment (i int); > create index testcomment_idx1 on testcomment (i); > comment on index testcomment_idx1 IS 'test comment'; > \di+ testcomment_idx1 > reindex table testcomment ; > \di+ testcomment_idx1 # ok > reindex table CONCURRENTLY testcomment ; > \di+ testcomment_idx1 # we lose comment Also i think we need change REINDEX to "<command>REINDEX</command> (without <option>CONCURRENTLY</option>)" in ACCESS EXCLUSIVE section Table-level Lock Modes documentation (to be similar with REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW and CREATE INDEX description) About reindex invalid indexes - i found one good question in archives [1]: how about toast indexes? I check it now, i am able drop invalid toast index, but i can not drop reduntant valid index. Reproduce: session 1: begin; select from test_toast ... for update; session 2: reindex table CONCURRENTLY test_toast ; session 2: interrupt by ctrl+C session 1: commit session 2: reindex table test_toast ; and now we have two toast indexes. DROP INDEX is able to remove only invalid ones. Valid index gives "ERROR: permission denied: "pg_toast_16426_index_ccnew" is a system catalog" About syntax: i vote for current syntax "reindex table CONCURRENTLY tablename". This looks consistent with existed CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY and REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW CONCURRENTLY. regards, Sergei [1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqT%2B6igqbUb59y04NEgHoBeUGYteuUr89AKnLTFNdB8Hyw%40mail.gmail.com