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

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0
Date
Msg-id DCA5C01E-7FD4-4C9F-987B-D0CB9ABBDE9F@anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
List pgsql-hackers

On January 19, 2019 7:32:55 AM PST, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
>Greetings,
>
>* Vik Fearing (vik.fearing@2ndquadrant.com) 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.
>>
>> I supposed we'll keep what would then be the legacy syntax for a few
>> decades or more.
>
>I'm still of the opinion that we should have CONCURRENTLY allowed
>without the parentheses.  I could see allowing it with them, as well,
>but I do feel that we should be using the parentheses-based approach
>more as a last-resort kind of thing instead of just baking in
>everything
>to require them.

+1

Andres

--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tomas Vondra
Date:
Subject: Re: Delay locking partitions during INSERT and UPDATE
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: A small note on the portability of cmake