* Peter Geoghegan (p...@heroku.com) wrote: > On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 5:46 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. > > I tend to agree. I think we should just live with the fact that not > every conceivable use case will be covered, at least initially. Then, > if an appreciable demand for even more flexibility emerges, we can > revisit this. We already have a syntax that is significantly more > flexible than the equivalent feature in any other system. Let's not > lose sight of that.
+1
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
