Re: Tricky bugs in concurrent index build - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: Tricky bugs in concurrent index build
Date
Msg-id 20060825173739.GM14622@alvh.no-ip.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Tricky bugs in concurrent index build  ("Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD" <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at>)
Responses Re: Tricky bugs in concurrent index build
Re: Tricky bugs in concurrent index build
List pgsql-hackers
Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD wrote:
> 
> > > 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;

That was what the patch originally used, but it was changed because it
made difficult for psql to auto-complete that.

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Zoltan Boszormenyi
Date:
Subject: Re: Performance testing of COPY (SELECT) TO
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] psql 'none' as a HISTFILE special case