Alvaro Herrera writes:
> One thing I just noticed is that CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY cannot be
> used within CREATE SCHEMA, so perhaps the lines that match the
> CONCURRENTLY keyword should use Matches() rather than TailMatches().
> Similarly (but perhaps this is not workable) the lines that TailMa
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 12/13/15 9:16 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Please see the attached to address those things (and others) with
> > extra fixes for a couple of comments.
>
> I have ported these changes to the new world order and divided them up
> into more logical changes that are more
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 2:16 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 12/13/15 9:16 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Please see the attached to address those things (and others) with
>> extra fixes for a couple of comments.
>
> I have ported these changes to the new world order and divided them up
> into mor
On 12/13/15 9:16 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Please see the attached to address those things (and others) with
> extra fixes for a couple of comments.
I have ported these changes to the new world order and divided them up
into more logical changes that are more clearly documented. Please
check t
On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> These two tab completion pieces look strange to me:
>
> /* If we have CREATE|UNIQUE INDEX CONCURRENTLY, then add "ON" */
> else if ((pg_strcasecmp(prev3_wd, "INDEX") == 0 ||
>pg_strcasecmp(prev2_wd, "INDEX") == 0
These two tab completion pieces look strange to me:
/* If we have CREATE|UNIQUE INDEX CONCURRENTLY, then add "ON" */
else if ((pg_strcasecmp(prev3_wd, "INDEX") == 0 ||
pg_strcasecmp(prev2_wd, "INDEX") == 0) &&
pg_strcasecmp(prev_wd, "CONCURRENTLY") == 0)
