On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 04:33:33PM -0800, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 03:17:12PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> The "cannot" part of the message is also inaccurate, and it's not clear to me
>>> why we have this specific restriction at all. REINDEX INDEX CONCURRENTLY
>>> accepts such indexes, so I doubt it's an implementation gap.
>>
>> If you would reword that, what would you change?
>
> I'd do "skipping reindex of invalid index \"%s.%s\"". If one wanted more,
In line with vacuum.c, that sounds like a good idea at the end.
> errhint("Use DROP INDEX or REINDEX INDEX.") would fit.
I'm OK with this suggestion as well.
--
Michael