Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> ... AFAICT, the only way >> we could support this syntax would be to make ON a reserved word. >> Or at least more reserved than it is now. We used up all the wiggle >> room we had by making CONCURRENTLY non-reserved.
> And here's Simon talking about making CONCURRENTLY more reserved so that > people stop creating indexes named "concurrently" ... > http://database-explorer.blogspot.com/2009/09/create-index-concurrently.html Hmm. It would actually work if we made CONCURRENTLY reserved instead; and that would fix Simon's gripe too. That's kind of weird from a standards-compliance POV, but in terms of the risk of breaking applications it might be better than reserving ON. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
