| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 |
| Date: | 2019-01-19 01:33:12 |
| Message-ID: | 20190119013312.GC3306@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 07:58:06PM +0100, Vik Fearing 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.
That would be a new thing as these variants don't exist yet, and WITH
is for storage parameters. In my opinion, the long-term take on doing
such things is that we are then able to reduce the number of reserved
keywords in the grammar. Even if for the case of CONCURRENTLY we may
see humans on Mars before this actually happens, this does not mean
that we should not do it moving forward for other keywords in the
grammar.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-01-19 01:39:43 | Re: Prepare Transaction support for ON COMMIT DROP temporary tables |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-01-19 01:20:52 | Re: Shouldn't current_schema() be at least PARALLEL RESTRICTED? |