| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, 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 17:37:40 |
| Message-ID: | 20060825173739.GM14622@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD wrote:
>
> > > 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?
>
> precedent syntax (Oracle, Informix) uses the keyword ONLINE at the end:
> CREATE INDEX blabla_x0 ON blabla (a,b) ONLINE;
That was what the patch originally used, but it was changed because it
made difficult for psql to auto-complete that.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-08-25 17:46:11 | Re: [HACKERS] psql 'none' as a HISTFILE special case |
| Previous Message | Zoltan Boszormenyi | 2006-08-25 17:37:34 | Re: Performance testing of COPY (SELECT) TO |