| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: creating index names automatically? |
| Date: | 2009-12-24 02:41:26 |
| Message-ID: | 33019D2E-9057-4DCA-B626-4AB1DFE4DC6C@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Dec 23, 2009, at 1:15 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Dec 23, 2009, at 3:52 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Uh ... I don't see what that fixes? If CONCURRENTLY can be a column
>>> name this is still ambiguous.
>
>> How?
>
> Because CONCURRENTLY can still be reduced as tricky_index_name, so
> it still doesn't know how to parse CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY ON ...
It compiles without warnings for me. There's only one production that
allows exactly one word between INDEX and ON.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Yoichi Hirai | 2009-12-24 03:21:14 | Corrupt WAL production possible in gistxlog.c |
| Previous Message | Adriano Lange | 2009-12-24 02:00:16 | Re: join ordering via Simulated Annealing |