Gregory Stark wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > The original thinking was to use CONCURRENT, and CREATE CONCURRENT INDEX > > sounded like a different type of index, not a different way to build the > > index. I don't think CONCURRENTLY has that problem, so CREATE > > CONCURRENTLY INDEX sounds good. To read in English, it would be read as > > CREATE CONCURRENTLY, INDEX ii. > > That doesn't sound like English at all to me. > > Fwiw, I think the best option was what Tom did. The gotcha I tripped on seems > pretty minor to me.
What bothers me about what we have now is that we have optional keywords before and after INDEX, rather than only between CREATE and INDEX. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
