I wrote: > Greg Stark <gsst...@mit.edu> writes: >> On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 3:54 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Well, this will also break tables and columns named "concurrently". >>> I think the odds of it being a problem are small, but still it is >>> a reserved word that shouldn't be reserved according to the SQL spec.
>> I suppose we could fix this by specifying a precedence and then >> explicitly checking if you're trying to make an index named >> concurrently and fixing it up later. > No, not really. Past the grammar there is no way to tell concurrently > from "concurrently", ie, if we did it like that then you couldn't even > use double quotes to get around it. Don't overthink this: either we > reserve the word or we don't put in the feature. I haven't heard anyone speak against making CONCURRENTLY semi-reserved, so I'll go ahead and do it that way. 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