Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0
Date
Msg-id 20190119013312.GC3306@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0  (Vik Fearing <vik.fearing@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0  (Vik Fearing <vik.fearing@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 07:58:06PM +0100, Vik Fearing wrote:
> My vote is to have homogeneous syntax for all of this, and so put it in
> parentheses, but we should also allow CREATE INDEX and DROP INDEX to use
> parentheses for it, too.

That would be a new thing as these variants don't exist yet, and WITH
is for storage parameters.  In my opinion, the long-term take on doing
such things is that we are then able to reduce the number of reserved
keywords in the grammar.  Even if for the case of CONCURRENTLY we may
see humans on Mars before this actually happens, this does not mean
that we should not do it moving forward for other keywords in the
grammar.
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Shouldn't current_schema() be at least PARALLEL RESTRICTED?
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Prepare Transaction support for ON COMMIT DROP temporary tables