| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Better name/syntax for "online" index creation |
| Date: | 2006-07-24 15:55:29 |
| Message-ID: | 11363.1153756529@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Am Montag, 24. Juli 2006 17:13 schrieb Tom Lane:
>> I'm tempted to put the new keyword at the very front:
>>
>> SHARED CREATE INDEX ....
>>
>> which would probably mean that we'd have to document it as if it were a
>> completely separate command from CREATE INDEX, but then again that might
>> not be a bad thing considering how differently the two cases behave.
> What is so different about them that would justify this?
Well, mainly it's exactly the reason that psql wants to know the
difference: one can be executed inside a transaction block, and the
other one can't. To my mind that's a sufficiently big difference
that it deserves a different command name. We messed this up with
CLUSTER but that's not a precedent I want to follow.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Florian G. Pflug | 2006-07-24 16:07:18 | Re: UPDATE/DELETE XXX WHERE CURRENT OF cursor_name |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-07-24 15:51:40 | Re: UPDATE/DELETE XXX WHERE CURRENT OF cursor_name |