| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Better name/syntax for "online" index creation |
| Date: | 2006-07-25 15:26:21 |
| Message-ID: | 10334.1153841181@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)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 ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-07-25 15:27:55 | Re: Forcing current WAL file to be archived |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-07-25 15:26:05 | Re: Forcing current WAL file to be archived |