Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes: > On 2012/12/10, at 18:28, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> If I have to choose between (1) keeping the same name OR (2) avoiding >> an AccessExclusiveLock then I would choose (2). Most other people >> would also, especially when all we would do is add/remove an >> underscore. Even if that is user visible. And if it is we can support >> a LOCK option that does (1) instead.
> Ok. Removing the switch name part is only deleting 10 lines of code in > index_concurrent_swap. > Then, do you guys have a preferred format for the concurrent index name? For > the time being an inelegant _cct suffix is used. The underscore at the end? You still need to avoid conflicting name assignments, so my recommendation would really be to use the select-a-new-name code already in use for CREATE INDEX without an index name. The underscore idea is cute, but I doubt it's worth the effort to implement, document, or explain it in a way that copes with repeated REINDEXes and conflicts. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers