On 12/10/12 5:21 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> 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.
Right, basically, you can do this right now using
CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY ${name}_tmp ...
DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY ${name};
ALTER INDEX ${name}_tmp RENAME TO ${name};
The only tricks here are if ${name}_tmp is already taken, in which case
you might as well just error out (or try a few different names), and if
${name} is already in use by the time you get to the last line, in which
case you can log a warning or an error.
What am I missing?
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
