-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 05:27:44PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
[...] > >> I think what we should learn from this case, as well as the recent > >> changes to EXPLAIN, COPY, and VACUUM syntax, is that adding options to > >> commands by creating keywords is not very scalable, and that putting > >> the modifier immediately after the command name is an especially poor > >> positioning. > > > > Perhaps. The original VACUUM syntax is a pretty bad piece of design, [...] > I wasn't intending to engage in pointless bellyaching. What I was > trying to do was point out that there are some common problems in all > of these cases, and trying to extract a design principle. I'm not > really sure why CREATE INDEX [CONCURRENTLY] is any different from > VACUUM [FULL] [FREEZE] [ANALYZE]. In both cases, the command and its > modifiers are immediately followed by a name, without any intervening > keyword or punctuation. In retrospect, that doesn't seem like a good > choice, at least to me, so, it might be something to look out for in > the future. YMMV, of course. I have to concur with Robert here. There will be always a need to add (PostgreSQL-specific, non-standard) modifiers. Having a "syntactical place" where to put them without forcing us to introduce new (non-standard) keywords or semi-keywords seems like a Good Thing. Regards - -- tomás -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFLNawdBcgs9XrR2kYRAnigAJ99c6dMhgk30hYK29ci0+WyXXCKzgCfV+c2 HLCy7BEvQYwWySMVI5n6LE0= =PpCd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
