On 7/25/06, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Csaba Nagy <nagy@ecircle-ag.com> writes:
> >> Strictly speaking, however, it would have to be NOLOCKLY in that case. :-)
>
> > In this case CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY ... sounds better to me, although
> > the whole feature sounds nice any way you will finally call it ;-)
>
> That reads well to me too. We'd need to check whether it can be parsed
> without making CONCURRENTLY a fully-reserved word, but offhand I think
> it would work because ON is already a fully-reserved word ...
Is there a chance that the locking variant will be replaced by
non-locking variant, or do we definitely want the locking
variant to stay?
Basically, this means whether the naming is temporary or permanent.
--
marko
