Do we want something like this? I just made this error myself so unless I'm
special (pauses for jokes) I imagine others would be prone to it as well.

I would normally be pretty leery of code like this but it seems unlikely
anyone would actually want an index named "concurrently" and the consequences
if you get it wrong in a production environment are pretty dire. We might even
consider making it an outright error.

--- gram.y      25 Aug 2006 10:14:17 +0100      2.558
+++ gram.y      25 Aug 2006 14:04:54 +0100      
@@ -56,6 +56,7 @@
 #include "commands/defrem.h"
 #include "nodes/makefuncs.h"
 #include "parser/gramparse.h"
+#include "parser/scansup.h"
 #include "storage/lmgr.h"
 #include "utils/date.h"
 #include "utils/datetime.h"
@@ -3653,6 +3654,12 @@
                        opt_definition OptTableSpace where_clause
                                        IndexStmt *n = makeNode(IndexStmt);
+                                       if 
(!strcmp(downcase_truncate_identifier($4,20,false), "concurrently"))
+                                               ereport(WARNING,
errmsg("performing non-concurrent index build of index named 
                                        n->unique = $2;
                                        n->concurrent = false;
                                        n->idxname = $4;
  Gregory Stark

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Reply via email to