On 2017-03-01 19:25:23 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 2/28/17 11:21 AM, Andreas Karlsson wrote: > > The only downside I can see to this approach is that we no logner will > > able to reindex catalog tables concurrently, but in return it should be > > easier to confirm that this approach can be made work. > > Another downside is any stored regclass fields will become invalid. > Admittedly that's a pretty unusual use case, but it'd be nice if there was > at least a way to let users fix things during the rename phase (perhaps via > an event trigger).
I'm fairly confident that we don't want to invoke event triggers inside the CIC code... I'm also fairly confident that between index oids stored somewhere being invalidated - what'd be a realistic use case of that - and not having reindex concurrently, just about everyone will choose the former. Regards, Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
