On 7/25/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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 ...
Is there a chance that the locking variant will be replaced by
non-locking variant, or do we definitely want the locking
variant to stay?
Basically, this means whether the naming is temporary or permanent.
--
marko
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
