Re: Better name/syntax for "online" index creation - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Better name/syntax for "online" index creation
Date
Msg-id 5139.1153802601@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Better name/syntax for "online" index creation  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
Responses Re: Better name/syntax for "online" index creation  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Re: Better name/syntax for "online" index creation  ("Bort, Paul" <pbort@tmwsystems.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Oh, psql needs to know before the command is sent?  How do we handle it
>> now with CLUSTER?

> We don't, which is exactly the problem.  If I'm not mistaken, currently
> psql in autocommit off mode, CLUSTER doesn't start a transaction block,
> which is arguably wrong because some forms of CLUSTER (single-table) are
> able to work within a transaction.

psql could actually tell these apart if it worked just a bit harder.
CLUSTER with no arguments is the one case, CLUSTER with anything after
it is the other.  Not sure why we couldn't be bothered to get that
right in psql the first time :-(.

But to get back to the point at hand, I think that there should be some
equally obvious syntactic clue about what CREATE INDEX does --- and
burying an ONLINE keyword near the end of the command doesn't qualify.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: On-disk bitmap index patch
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] pgstattuple extension for indexes