Re: Tricky bugs in concurrent index build

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, 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 15:17:09
Message-ID: 25326.1156519029@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> 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.

Yeah, putting them both into that space seems consistent to me, and
it will fix the problem of making an omitted index name look like
a valid command.

I'm not sure I should be opening this can of worms, but do we want to
use a different keyword than CONCURRENTLY to make it read better there?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2006-08-25 15:17:25 Re: [HACKERS] psql 'none' as a HISTFILE special case
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2006-08-25 15:16:23 Re: Safer auto-initdb for RPM init script