Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> > I see we have:
> > CREATE index_opt_unique INDEX CONCURRENTLY index_name ...
> > which explains how this error occurs.
>
> Maybe to you, but I'm still caffeine-deprived and don't exactly see what
> it was that Greg mistyped. AFAICS he'd have to type CONCURRENTLY twice
> to get into a scenario where the proposed warning would fire.
>
> > But might it not be better to have this instead?
> > CREATE CONCURRENTLY index_opt_unique INDEX index_name ...
>
> When I was fooling with gram.y I was thinking that actually
>
> CREATE [UNIQUE] INDEX indexname [CONCURRENTLY] ...
>
> would be the most grammatical thing. But I can live with putting
The original thinking was to use CONCURRENT, and CREATE CONCURRENT INDEX
sounded like a different type of index, not a different way to build the
index. I don't think CONCURRENTLY has that problem, so CREATE
CONCURRENTLY INDEX sounds good. To read in English, it would be read as
CREATE CONCURRENTLY, INDEX ii.
> it right after CREATE, too. Or there was the proposal to put it
> first:
>
> [CONCURRENTLY] CREATE [UNIQUE] INDEX indexname ...
I think this suggested the command was CONCURRENTLY, which isn't good.
-- Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
