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.
-- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
