On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 5:04 PM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: > If you're dead set on having an escape hatch, maybe we should just get > over it and add a way of specifying a unique index by name. As I said, > these under-served use cases are either exceedingly rare or entirely > theoretical.
I'm decidedly unenthusiastic about that. People don't expect CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY + DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY to break their DML. I think the solution in this case would be a gateway to problems larger than the one we're trying to solve. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
