Ühel kenal päeval, T, 2006-07-25 kell 11:26, kirjutas Tom Lane:
> Csaba Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Strictly speaking, however, it would have to be NOLOCKLY in that case. :-)
>
> > In this case CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY ... sounds better to me, although
> > the whole feature sounds nice any way you will finally call it ;-)
>
> That reads well to me too. We'd need to check whether it can be parsed
> without making CONCURRENTLY a fully-reserved word, but offhand I think
> it would work because ON is already a fully-reserved word ...
At some point we may add some other ops we start doing CONCURRENTLY,
like perhaps CLUSTER CONCURRENTLY or even ALTER TABLE CONCURRENTLY ADD
COLUMN x DEFAULT nextval('s'); and other table rewriting ops.
--
----------------
Hannu Krosing
Database Architect
Skype Technologies OÜ
Akadeemia tee 21 F, Tallinn, 12618, Estonia
Skype me: callto:hkrosing
Get Skype for free: http://www.skype.com
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
