Re: Better name/syntax for "online" index creation

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Subject: Re: Better name/syntax for "online" index creation
Date: 2006-07-24 15:55:29
Message-ID: 11363.1153756529@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Am Montag, 24. Juli 2006 17:13 schrieb Tom Lane:
>> I'm tempted to put the new keyword at the very front:
>>
>> SHARED CREATE INDEX ....
>>
>> which would probably mean that we'd have to document it as if it were a
>> completely separate command from CREATE INDEX, but then again that might
>> not be a bad thing considering how differently the two cases behave.

> What is so different about them that would justify this?

Well, mainly it's exactly the reason that psql wants to know the
difference: one can be executed inside a transaction block, and the
other one can't. To my mind that's a sufficiently big difference
that it deserves a different command name. We messed this up with
CLUSTER but that's not a precedent I want to follow.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Florian G. Pflug 2006-07-24 16:07:18 Re: UPDATE/DELETE XXX WHERE CURRENT OF cursor_name
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-07-24 15:51:40 Re: UPDATE/DELETE XXX WHERE CURRENT OF cursor_name