On January 19, 2019 7:32:55 AM PST, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: >Greetings, > >* Vik Fearing (vik.fear...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: >> My vote is to have homogeneous syntax for all of this, and so put it >in >> parentheses, but we should also allow CREATE INDEX and DROP INDEX to >use >> parentheses for it, too. >> >> I supposed we'll keep what would then be the legacy syntax for a few >> decades or more. > >I'm still of the opinion that we should have CONCURRENTLY allowed >without the parentheses. I could see allowing it with them, as well, >but I do feel that we should be using the parentheses-based approach >more as a last-resort kind of thing instead of just baking in >everything >to require them. +1 Andres -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
- Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 Michael Paquier
- Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 Vik Fearing
- Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 Michael Paquier
- Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 Vik Fearing
- Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 Sergei Kornilov
- Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 Michael Paquier
- Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 Robert Haas
- Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 Pavel Stehule
- Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 Andres Freund
- Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 Stephen Frost
- Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 Andres Freund
- Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 Peter Eisentraut
- Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 Michael Paquier
- Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 Peter Eisentraut
- Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 Michael Paquier
- Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 Sergei Kornilov
- Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 Alvaro Herrera
- Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 Michael Paquier