-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 05:27:44PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
> >> I think what we should learn from this case, as well as the recent
> >> changes to EXPLAIN, COPY, and VACUUM syntax, is that adding options to
> >> commands by creating keywords is not very scalable, and that putting
> >> the modifier immediately after the command name is an especially poor
> >> positioning.
> >
> > Perhaps. The original VACUUM syntax is a pretty bad piece of design,
[...]
> I wasn't intending to engage in pointless bellyaching. What I was
> trying to do was point out that there are some common problems in all
> of these cases, and trying to extract a design principle. I'm not
> really sure why CREATE INDEX [CONCURRENTLY] is any different from
> VACUUM [FULL] [FREEZE] [ANALYZE]. In both cases, the command and its
> modifiers are immediately followed by a name, without any intervening
> keyword or punctuation. In retrospect, that doesn't seem like a good
> choice, at least to me, so, it might be something to look out for in
> the future. YMMV, of course.
I have to concur with Robert here. There will be always a need to add
(PostgreSQL-specific, non-standard) modifiers. Having a "syntactical
place" where to put them without forcing us to introduce new
(non-standard) keywords or semi-keywords seems like a Good Thing.
Regards
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFLNawdBcgs9XrR2kYRAnigAJ99c6dMhgk30hYK29ci0+WyXXCKzgCfV+c2
HLCy7BEvQYwWySMVI5n6LE0=
=PpCd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
