"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> writes:
> Actually, as a comment here, since I *think* I understand where Tom is
> coming from ... and since I've either missed it, or it hasn't been
> answered yet ... why was the original patch incomplete in only addressing
> 1 of 3 REINDEX conditions? Is there a reason why that one condition
> is/was safe to do it with, but not the other 2?
That's exactly what's bothering me. Where I'd like to end up is that
either all three variants of REINDEX allow this, or all three do not.
I don't understand why only REINDEX TABLE should support it.
regards, tom lane
