| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| 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 15:06:50 |
| Message-ID: | 87y7tcua5x.fsf@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2006-08-25 15:07:03 | Re: [GENERAL] invalid byte sequence ? |
| Previous Message | Martin Atukunda | 2006-08-25 15:03:55 | Re: psql 'none' as a HISTFILE special case |