Re: Tricky bugs in concurrent index build

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Tricky bugs in concurrent index build
Date: 2006-08-25 15:34:30
Message-ID: 44EF1886.4020405@dunslane.net
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.
>
>

It's a form of construction my father (who was a noted orator) loved to
use, maybe a little too much. It is arguably slightly archaic, but
nevertheless quite grammatical ;-) I agree that these days it is more
idiomatic to defer the adverb until after the object of the verb in most
cases.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2006-08-25 15:36:44 Re: Autovacuum on by default?
Previous Message Matthew T. O'Connor 2006-08-25 15:32:02 Re: Autovacuum on by default?