On 4/7/22 14:40, Justin Pryzby wrote: > On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 01:37:57PM +0200, Frédéric Yhuel wrote: >> Maybe something along this line? (patch attached) > Some language fixes.
Thank you Justin! I applied your fixes in the v2 patch (attached).
v2 patch sounds good.
> I didn't verify the behavior, but +1 to document the practical consequences. > I guess this is why someone invented REINDEX CONCURRENTLY. >
Indeed ;) That being said, REINDEX CONCURRENTLY could give you an invalid index, so sometimes you may be tempted to go for a simpler REINDEX, especially if you believe that the SELECTs won't be blocked.
