Gregory Stark wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
>
> > 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.
>
> That doesn't sound like English at all to me.
>
> Fwiw, I think the best option was what Tom did. The gotcha I tripped on seems
> pretty minor to me.
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.
-- Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
