| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, 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: | 2019-01-23 18:17:26 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZW=rowSzYUzjVJ1kF8zH5NQYcHrhuRNJ_Z9DxBb-Q3Rw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 9:01 PM Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> I don't want a situation like this:
> CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY ...
> DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY ...
> REINDEX INDEX (CONCURRENTLY) ...
>
> All three should be the same, and my suggestion is to add the
> parenthesized version to CREATE and DROP and not add the unparenthesized
> version to REINDEX.
+1 for all three being the same. I could see allowing only the
unparenthesized format for all three, or allowing both forms for all
three, but I think having only one form for each and having them not
agree will be too confusing.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2019-01-23 18:23:40 | Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2019-01-23 17:36:13 | Re: ArchiveEntry optional arguments refactoring |