"Routine Reindexing" docs should be updated to reference REINDEX CONCURRENTLY
The documentation has a section called "Routine Reindexing", which
explains how to simulate REINDEX CONCURRENTLY with a sequence of
creation and replacement steps. This should be updated to reference
the REINDEX CONCURRENTLY command.
--
Peter Geoghegan
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 01:34:41PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
The documentation has a section called "Routine Reindexing", which
explains how to simulate REINDEX CONCURRENTLY with a sequence of
creation and replacement steps. This should be updated to reference
the REINDEX CONCURRENTLY command.
Agreed, good catch. I would suggest to remove most of the section and
just replace it with a reference to REINDEX CONCURRENTLY, as per the
attached. What do you think?
--
Michael
Attachments:
reindex-docs.patchtext/x-diff; charset=us-asciiDownload+4-13
On 2019-04-26 05:05, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 01:34:41PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
The documentation has a section called "Routine Reindexing", which
explains how to simulate REINDEX CONCURRENTLY with a sequence of
creation and replacement steps. This should be updated to reference
the REINDEX CONCURRENTLY command.Agreed, good catch. I would suggest to remove most of the section and
just replace it with a reference to REINDEX CONCURRENTLY, as per the
attached. What do you think?
looks good to me
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 01:34:41PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
The documentation has a section called "Routine Reindexing", which
explains how to simulate REINDEX CONCURRENTLY with a sequence of
creation and replacement steps. This should be updated to reference
the REINDEX CONCURRENTLY command.
Agreed, good catch. I would suggest to remove most of the section and
just replace it with a reference to REINDEX CONCURRENTLY, as per the
attached. What do you think?
+1. Maybe say "... which requires only a
<literal>SHARE UPDATE EXCLUSIVE</literal> lock."
regards, tom lane