Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Diverting effort into third-best substitutes isn't going to help get
>> them done faster.
> Well, not providing tools for people to work around the problem seems
> wrong too.
We *have* such tools: REINDEX is certainly usable as-is. The
improvements proposed in this thread are just polishing a buggy whip
that will be obsolete as soon as someone tackles the real problem.
I don't object to adding the already-submitted reindex script into
contrib; that costs nothing. But the time of people who would be able
to improve the backend implementation of REINDEX is valuable, and
would be better spent elsewhere. IMHO anyway.
regards, tom lane