Re: Alter index rename concurrently to - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Corey Huinker
Subject Re: Alter index rename concurrently to
Date
Msg-id CADkLM=e9+x4GLdmSt1m7=vnv0mcFGUKcd2BgA26Zb0=yLUB0bQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Alter index rename concurrently to  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
You appear to be saying that you think that renaming an index
concurrently is not safe.  In that case, this patch should be rejected.
However, I don't think it necessarily is unsafe.  What we need is some
reasoning about the impact, not a bunch of different options that we
don't understand.

I've had this same need, and dreamed this same solution before. I also thought about a syntax like ALTER INDEX foo RENAME TO WHATEVER-IT-WOULD-HAVE-BEEN-NAMED-BY-DEFAULT to aid this situation.

But all of those needs fade if we have REINDEX CONCURRENTLY. I think that's where we should focus our efforts. 

A possible side effort into something like a VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY, which would essentially do what pg_repack does, but keeping the same oid and the stats that go with it, but even that's a nice-to-have add-on to REINDEX CONCURRENTLY.
 

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: LLVM jit and matview
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: [Proposal] Add accumulated statistics for wait event