On 10 December 2012 22:27, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > 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?
That this is already recorded in my book> ;-) And also that REINDEX CONCURRENTLY doesn't work like that, yet. -- 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