Re: Sequence Access Method WIP - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Sequence Access Method WIP
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoYy92CO1tcpDG-hd=pxPBcyqcyetFqeW=2Cu2H8st0VKA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Sequence Access Method WIP  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Sequence Access Method WIP
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru> writes:
>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
>> wrote:
>>> I'm thinking we'd do CREATE ACCESS METHOD foobar TYPE INDEX or something
>>> like that.
>
>> I would prefer "CREATE {INDEX | SEQUENCE | ... } ACCESS METHOD name HANDLER
>> handler;", but I don't insist.
>
> I think that Alvaro's idea is less likely to risk future grammar
> conflicts.  We've had enough headaches from CREATE [ UNIQUE ] INDEX
> [ CONCURRENTLY ] to make me really wary of variables in the statement-name
> part of the syntax.

Strong +1.  If we put the type of access method immediately after
CREATE, I'm almost positive we'll regret it for exactly that reason.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Using quicksort for every external sort run
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Template for commit messages