| From: | "Marko Kreen" <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Csaba Nagy" <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "postgres hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Rod Taylor" <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca>, "Greg Stark" <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Better name/syntax for "online" index creation |
| Date: | 2006-07-25 19:49:22 |
| Message-ID: | e51f66da0607251249y14d147dcre7df8f655079aad5@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 7/25/06, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com> writes:
> >> Strictly speaking, however, it would have to be NOLOCKLY in that case. :-)
>
> > In this case CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY ... sounds better to me, although
> > the whole feature sounds nice any way you will finally call it ;-)
>
> That reads well to me too. We'd need to check whether it can be parsed
> without making CONCURRENTLY a fully-reserved word, but offhand I think
> it would work because ON is already a fully-reserved word ...
Is there a chance that the locking variant will be replaced by
non-locking variant, or do we definitely want the locking
variant to stay?
Basically, this means whether the naming is temporary or permanent.
--
marko
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marko Kreen | 2006-07-25 20:05:55 | Re: Getting current transaction id |
| Previous Message | Joachim Wieland | 2006-07-25 19:45:05 | status of yet another timezone todo item |