Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 17:34, Christopher Browne wrote: >> Not surprising either. While the reindex takes place, updates to that >> table have to be deferred.
> Right, but that's no reason not to let SELECTs proceed, for example. What if said SELECTs are using the index in question? I suspect it is true that REINDEX locks more than it needs to, but we should tread carefully about loosening it. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster