Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>> That's probably more easily said than done --- in particular, I don't
>> understand what the committed state after the first transaction would
>> look like.
> I think you build a whole new index named something like ".temp-reindex" and
> then as the last step of the second transaction delete the old idnex and
> rename the new index.
That would require getting exclusive lock on the table.
regards, tom lane
