| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Better name/syntax for "online" index creation |
| Date: | 2006-07-24 15:38:31 |
| Message-ID: | 200607241738.32609.peter_e@gmx.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Am Montag, 24. Juli 2006 17:13 schrieb Tom Lane:
> To my mind, "ONLINE" just doesn't convey any useful information ---
> the existing CREATE INDEX functionality could already be said to be
> "online", in the sense that you don't have to take down the database
> to do it. I thought about "SHARED" but someone could probably raise
> the same objection to it. Anyone have a better idea?
CONCURRENTLY
> 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?
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-07-24 15:43:28 | Re: UPDATE/DELETE XXX WHERE CURRENT OF cursor_name |
| Previous Message | Florian G. Pflug | 2006-07-24 15:34:08 | Re: UPDATE/DELETE XXX WHERE CURRENT OF cursor_name |