| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
| Cc: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Tricky bugs in concurrent index build |
| Date: | 2006-08-25 17:59:36 |
| Message-ID: | 3456.1156528776@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> writes:
>> That was what the patch originally used, but it was changed
>> because it made difficult for psql to auto-complete that.
> That is imho not enough of a reason to divert.
My recollection is that the principal argument against ONLINE was
that it didn't convey the function of the option to anyone who
didn't already know Oracle's usage of the term.
Also, psql's problem is not with auto-completion, it's with
detecting whether the command is allowed inside a transaction
block. That's not a function we can just blow off.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martin Atukunda | 2006-08-25 18:02:43 | Re: [HACKERS] psql 'none' as a HISTFILE special case |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2006-08-25 17:57:58 | Re: Tricky bugs in concurrent index build |