On 2012-12-10 22:33:50 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: > 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.
The last submitted patch works pretty similar: CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY $name_cct; ALTER INDEX $name RENAME TO cct_$name; ALTER INDEX $name_tmp RENAME TO $tmp; ALTER INDEX $name_tmp RENAME TO $name_cct; DROP INDEX CONURRENCTLY $name_cct; It does that under an exlusive locks, but doesn't handle dependencies yet... 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