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
> 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]

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

Reply via email to