| From: | "Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "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 17:26:59 |
| Message-ID: | E1539E0ED7043848906A8FF995BDA579014DB7DB@m0143.s-mxs.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > 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;
I'd stick with that.
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zoltan Boszormenyi | 2006-08-25 17:37:34 | Re: Performance testing of COPY (SELECT) TO |
| Previous Message | Bort, Paul | 2006-08-25 17:22:28 | Re: [Pgsqlrpms-hackers] Safer auto-initdb for RPM init |