On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 01:16:55AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > What's bugging me about it is that the proposed syntax wedges a bunch > of index-access-method-specific parameters into what ought to be an > access-method-agnostic syntax; and furthermore does it by adding more > grammar keywords, something we have far too many of already. There are > direct measurable costs to having more keywords, and the approach does > not scale up to allowing other index AMs to have other parameters that > might not bear at all on btree.
I think the current method is based on compatability with other databases. However, a more generic approach would be to (re)use the "definition" or "def_list" productions. This would allow any of the following (examples): CREATE INDEX foo ON bar (x) WITH (fillfactor = 70, option = blah); CREATE INDEX foo ON bar (x) WITH fillfactor = 70, option = blah; CREATE INDEX foo ON bar (x) (fillfactor = 70, option = blah); CREATE INDEX foo ON bar (x) fillfactor = 70, option = blah; All without creating any new keywords. You could also place them before/after the USING clause although there would be some grammer conflicts there. Would this be better? -- Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > Patent. n. Genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration. A patent is a > tool for doing 5% of the work and then sitting around waiting for someone > else to do the other 95% so you can sue them.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
