"Hiroshi Inoue" <inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
>> I'd ask the question the other way: why would it be a good
>> idea to allow
>> this in REINDEX TABLE and not in the other two cases? And
>> did it really
>> work?
> Yes. I would revert your change.
You didn't answer the first question: why's this a good idea?
It seems risky and of little value to try to support system
table reindexing without disabling system indexes.
Also, your assertion that it works doesn't convince me. That business
in reindex_table about doing two setRelhasindex() calls gave me the
willies. Why was that needed? "to keep consistency with WAL" isn't
enough commentary for code as strange as that. And having a
CommandCounterIncrement() that's executed in some cases and not others
is a recipe for bugs; we've been burnt by that before.
regards, tom lane
