From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: creating index names automatically? |
Date: | 2009-12-23 03:24:13 |
Message-ID: | 3625.1261538653@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... AFAICT, the only way
>> we could support this syntax would be to make ON a reserved word.
>> Or at least more reserved than it is now. We used up all the wiggle
>> room we had by making CONCURRENTLY non-reserved.
> And here's Simon talking about making CONCURRENTLY more reserved so that
> people stop creating indexes named "concurrently" ...
> http://database-explorer.blogspot.com/2009/09/create-index-concurrently.html
Hmm. It would actually work if we made CONCURRENTLY reserved instead;
and that would fix Simon's gripe too. That's kind of weird from a
standards-compliance POV, but in terms of the risk of breaking
applications it might be better than reserving ON.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-12-23 03:31:07 | Re: creating index names automatically? |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-12-23 03:17:31 | Re: creating index names automatically? |