| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Tricky bugs in concurrent index build |
| Date: | 2006-08-25 14:01:00 |
| Message-ID: | 23318.1156514460@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> I see we have:
> CREATE index_opt_unique INDEX CONCURRENTLY index_name ...
> which explains how this error occurs.
Maybe to you, but I'm still caffeine-deprived and don't exactly see what
it was that Greg mistyped. AFAICS he'd have to type CONCURRENTLY twice
to get into a scenario where the proposed warning would fire.
> But might it not be better to have this instead?
> CREATE CONCURRENTLY index_opt_unique INDEX index_name ...
When I was fooling with gram.y I was thinking that actually
CREATE [UNIQUE] INDEX indexname [CONCURRENTLY] ...
would be the most grammatical thing. But I can live with putting
it right after CREATE, too. Or there was the proposal to put it
first:
[CONCURRENTLY] CREATE [UNIQUE] INDEX indexname ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-08-25 14:06:23 | Re: Tricky bugs in concurrent index build |
| Previous Message | Böszörményi Zoltán | 2006-08-25 13:40:38 | Re: [HACKERS] Performance testing of COPY (SELECT) TO |