On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hmm.... From the 9.2 manual it seems that might not work out so well:
But If you do keep the drop index inside the transaction, then you
would probably be better off using truncate rather than delete, and
rebuild the index non-concurrently and move that inside the
transaction as well.
TRUNCATE is not MVCC-safe (see Chapter 13 for general information about MVCC). After truncation, the table will appear empty to all concurrent transactions, even if they are using a snapshot taken before the truncation occurred.
It looks like other transactions could find an empty table while it was being reloaded under that approach.
