On 10 December 2012 22:18, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > On 12/8/12 9:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I'm tempted to propose that REINDEX CONCURRENTLY simply not try to >> preserve the index name exactly. Something like adding or removing >> trailing underscores would probably serve to generate a nonconflicting >> name that's not too unsightly. > > If you think you can rename an index without an exclusive lock, then why > not rename it back to the original name when you're done?
Because the index isn't being renamed. An alternate equivalent index is being created instead. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
