| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Tricky bugs in concurrent index build |
| Date: | 2006-08-25 15:34:30 |
| Message-ID: | 44EF1886.4020405@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gregory Stark wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
>
>
>> The original thinking was to use CONCURRENT, and CREATE CONCURRENT INDEX
>> sounded like a different type of index, not a different way to build the
>> index. I don't think CONCURRENTLY has that problem, so CREATE
>> CONCURRENTLY INDEX sounds good. To read in English, it would be read as
>> CREATE CONCURRENTLY, INDEX ii.
>>
>
> That doesn't sound like English at all to me.
>
> Fwiw, I think the best option was what Tom did. The gotcha I tripped on seems
> pretty minor to me.
>
>
It's a form of construction my father (who was a noted orator) loved to
use, maybe a little too much. It is arguably slightly archaic, but
nevertheless quite grammatical ;-) I agree that these days it is more
idiomatic to defer the adverb until after the object of the verb in most
cases.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2006-08-25 15:36:44 | Re: Autovacuum on by default? |
| Previous Message | Matthew T. O'Connor | 2006-08-25 15:32:02 | Re: Autovacuum on by default? |