Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ciTpW-00019K-76 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 22:31:42 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ciTpV-0006yD-12 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 22:31:41 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ciTpS-0006of-T8 for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 22:31:39 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ciTpQ-0003wz-OG for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 22:31:37 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v1RMVL9e004132; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 17:31:21 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Michael Paquier cc: Bruce Momjian , Andreas Karlsson , Andres Freund , Robert Haas , Peter Eisentraut , Jim Nasby , PostgreSQL mailing lists Subject: Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 In-reply-to: References: <20150202141014.GA9201@alap3.anarazel.de> <4b6b0b72-94c8-79ad-baf1-b01587807315@proxel.se> <68cd9337-90ab-c654-ed6b-a32abc26e147@proxel.se> <1da61300-31e8-d416-1d41-56c15cd4753d@proxel.se> <083ea668-538e-06ae-c1a7-37b0edbeeb9c@proxel.se> <20170227202916.GC421@momjian.us> Comments: In-reply-to Michael Paquier message dated "Tue, 28 Feb 2017 07:19:40 +0900" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <4130.1488234681.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 17:31:21 -0500 Message-ID: <4131.1488234681@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -0.4 (/) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org Michael Paquier writes: > I don't object to the addition of this patch in next CF as this > presents no new concept. Still per the complications this patch and > because it is a complicated patch I was wondering if people are fine > to include it in this last CF. The March CF is already looking pretty daunting. We can try to include this but I won't be too surprised if it gets punted to a future CF. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers