On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 08:16:11PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Yes. Being able to do this is useful for several reasons. For example,
> it's useful to be able to create a new, equivalent index before
> dropping the original when the original is bloated. (You could use
> REINDEX instead, but that has some disadvantages that you might want
> to avoid.)
REINDEX CONCURRENTLY recently added to v12 relies on that heavily
actually, so as you can finish with the same index definition twice in
the state of swapping both index definitions.
--
Michael
