Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I see we have: > > CREATE index_opt_unique INDEX CONCURRENTLY index_name ... > > which explains how this error occurs. > > Maybe to you, but I'm still caffeine-deprived and don't exactly see what > it was that Greg mistyped. AFAICS he'd have to type CONCURRENTLY twice > to get into a scenario where the proposed warning would fire. > > > But might it not be better to have this instead? > > CREATE CONCURRENTLY index_opt_unique INDEX index_name ... > > When I was fooling with gram.y I was thinking that actually > > CREATE [UNIQUE] INDEX indexname [CONCURRENTLY] ... > > would be the most grammatical thing. But I can live with putting
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. > it right after CREATE, too. Or there was the proposal to put it > first: > > [CONCURRENTLY] CREATE [UNIQUE] INDEX indexname ... I think this suggested the command was CONCURRENTLY, which isn't good. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
