| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Tricky bugs in concurrent index build |
| Date: | 2006-08-25 15:11:54 |
| Message-ID: | 200608251511.k7PFBsj13126@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gregory Stark wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
>
> > The original thinking was to use CONCURRENT, and CREATE CONCURRENT INDEX
> > sounded like a different type of index, not a different way to build the
> > index. I don't think CONCURRENTLY has that problem, so CREATE
> > CONCURRENTLY INDEX sounds good. To read in English, it would be read as
> > CREATE CONCURRENTLY, INDEX ii.
>
> That doesn't sound like English at all to me.
>
> Fwiw, I think the best option was what Tom did. The gotcha I tripped on seems
> pretty minor to me.
What bothers me about what we have now is that we have optional keywords
before and after INDEX, rather than only between CREATE and INDEX.
--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2006-08-25 15:14:49 | Re: [Pgsqlrpms-hackers] Safer auto-initdb for RPM initscript |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2006-08-25 15:07:03 | Re: [GENERAL] invalid byte sequence ? |