On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Alexander Korotkov <a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> writes:
>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com>
>> wrote:
>>> I'm thinking we'd do CREATE ACCESS METHOD foobar TYPE INDEX or something
>>> like that.
>
>> I would prefer "CREATE {INDEX | SEQUENCE | ... } ACCESS METHOD name HANDLER
>> handler;", but I don't insist.
>
> I think that Alvaro's idea is less likely to risk future grammar
> conflicts. We've had enough headaches from CREATE [ UNIQUE ] INDEX
> [ CONCURRENTLY ] to make me really wary of variables in the statement-name
> part of the syntax.
Strong +1. If we put the type of access method immediately after
CREATE, I'm almost positive we'll regret it for exactly that reason.
--
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
