| From: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 |
| Date: | 2018-12-31 21:35:57 |
| Message-ID: | 87a7kltmbt.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>>>>> "Alvaro" == Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
Alvaro> After looking at the proposed grammar again today and in danger
Alvaro> of repeating myself, IMO allowing the concurrency keyword to
Alvaro> appear outside the parens would be a mistake. Valid commands:
Alvaro> REINDEX (VERBOSE, CONCURRENTLY) TABLE foo;
Alvaro> REINDEX (CONCURRENTLY) INDEX bar;
We burned that bridge with CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY; to make REINDEX
require different syntax would be too inconsistent.
If we didn't have all these existing uses of CONCURRENTLY without
parens, your argument might have more merit; but we do.
--
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2018-12-31 21:41:30 | Re: Refactoring the checkpointer's fsync request queue |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-12-31 21:16:50 | Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 |