I wrote:
> Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> writes:
>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 3:54 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Well, this will also break tables and columns named "concurrently".
>>> I think the odds of it being a problem are small, but still it is
>>> a reserved word that shouldn't be reserved according to the SQL spec.
>> I suppose we could fix this by specifying a precedence and then
>> explicitly checking if you're trying to make an index named
>> concurrently and fixing it up later.
> No, not really. Past the grammar there is no way to tell concurrently
> from "concurrently", ie, if we did it like that then you couldn't even
> use double quotes to get around it. Don't overthink this: either we
> reserve the word or we don't put in the feature.
I haven't heard anyone speak against making CONCURRENTLY semi-reserved,
so I'll go ahead and do it that way.
regards, tom lane
