On 10 December 2012 22:18, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> On 12/8/12 9:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm tempted to propose that REINDEX CONCURRENTLY simply not try to
>> preserve the index name exactly. Something like adding or removing
>> trailing underscores would probably serve to generate a nonconflicting
>> name that's not too unsightly.
>
> If you think you can rename an index without an exclusive lock, then why
> not rename it back to the original name when you're done?
Because the index isn't being renamed. An alternate equivalent index
is being created instead.
-- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
