Sorry, that should have been:
Isn't it true that reindex's behavior ON A FAILURE is to simply, quietly
delete the index? that was reported ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> REINDEX just rebuilds the index, not just drop it. In fact, 7.3 will
> have a reindexdb script.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> scott.marlowe wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > > Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > > > Would it be worth adding REINDEX ALL and CLUSTER ALL as actual SQL commands?
> > > > This would be neat. Plus, it means we don't have to worry about having
> > > > unix-only script in the distro once we have Win32 support.
> > > >
> > > > Actually, we should just leave the 'ALL' off. That will make them behave
> > > > like VACUUM without arguments...
> > >
> > > Wow, now that is a nify idea! Let me add it to TODO and we can get rid
> > > of the shell scripts entirely:
> > >
> > > o Allow CLUSTER to cluster all tables, remove clusterdb
> > > o Allow REINDEX to rebuild all indexes, remove /contrib/reindex
> > >
> > > If we ever get the index growth fixed, we will not need the reindex
> > > change, I guess, but maybe if they have some index corruption but they
> > > are not sure where it may be helpful.
> >
> > Isn't it true that reindex's behavior is to simply, quietly delete the
> > index? that was reported by someone when all this was going around
> > before. I wrote my own reindex script that basically (in a single
> > transaction) grabbed the definition of the index, dropped said index, then
> > recreated it, then committed the transaction, so that if it failed for any
> > reason, the old index was still there.
> >
> > If reindex does "lose" the index on failure then we need to look at
> > changing how it works before we recommend it as a "daily maintenance
> > routine".
> >
> >
>
>
