| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org,Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>,Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>,Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>,Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org>,Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>,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: | 2019-01-19 16:31:45 |
| Message-ID: | DCA5C01E-7FD4-4C9F-987B-D0CB9ABBDE9F@anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On January 19, 2019 7:32:55 AM PST, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
>Greetings,
>
>* Vik Fearing (vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
>> My vote is to have homogeneous syntax for all of this, and so put it
>in
>> parentheses, but we should also allow CREATE INDEX and DROP INDEX to
>use
>> parentheses for it, too.
>>
>> I supposed we'll keep what would then be the legacy syntax for a few
>> decades or more.
>
>I'm still of the opinion that we should have CONCURRENTLY allowed
>without the parentheses. I could see allowing it with them, as well,
>but I do feel that we should be using the parentheses-based approach
>more as a last-resort kind of thing instead of just baking in
>everything
>to require them.
+1
Andres
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-01-19 16:49:52 | A small note on the portability of cmake |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2019-01-19 15:59:02 | Re: Delay locking partitions during INSERT and UPDATE |