Greetings, * Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 2018-Dec-14, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > That wasn't what was asked and I don't think I see a problem with having > > concurrently be allowed in the parentheses. For comparison, it's not > > like "explain analyze select ..." or "explain buffers select" is > > terribly good grammatical form. > > ... and we don't allow EXPLAIN BUFFERS at all, and if we had had a > parenthesized option list in EXPLAIN when we invented EXPLAIN ANALYZE, I > bet we would have *not* made the ANALYZE keyword appear unadorned in > that command.
I'm not convinced of that- there is value in being able to write full and useful commands without having to always use parentheses. > > If you wanted to try to get to a better form for the spelled out > > sentence, I would think: > > > > concurrently reindex table test > > > > would probably be the approach to use, > > I think this is terrible from a command-completion perspective, and from > a documentation perspective (Certainly we wouldn't have a manpage about > the "concurrently" command, for starters). Right, I agreed that this had other downsides in the email you're replying to here. Glad we agree that it's not a good option. > My vote goes to put the keyword inside of and exclusively in the > parenthesized option list. I disagree with the idea of exclusively having concurrently be in the parentheses. 'explain buffers' is a much less frequently used option (though that might, in part, be because it's a bit annoying to write out explain (analyze, buffers) select...; I wonder if we could have a way to say "if I'm running analyze, I always want buffers"...), but concurrently reindexing a table (or index..) is going to almost certainly be extremely common, perhaps even more common than *not* reindexing concurrently. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
