On 2012-12-10 17:27:45 -0500, Peter Eisentraut 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?
I don't think this is the problematic side of the patch. The question is rather how to transfer the dependencies without too much ugliness or how to swap oids without a race. Either by accepting an exlusive lock or by playing some games, the latter possibly being easier with renaming... Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund 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