Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1ZWWGz-0002QC-DA for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 21:05:49 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1ZWWGy-0005Ii-Ro for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 21:05:48 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1ZWWGy-0005IV-CD for pgsql-docs@postgresql.org; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 21:05:48 +0000 Received: from momjian.us ([72.94.173.45]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1ZWWGs-0001cZ-4h for pgsql-docs@postgresql.org; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 21:05:47 +0000 Received: from bruce by momjian.us with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1ZWWGr-0002pl-3E; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 17:05:41 -0400 Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 17:05:41 -0400 From: Bruce Momjian To: Josh Berkus Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Outdated note about unique indexes Message-ID: <20150831210540.GC17858@momjian.us> References: <559D9FE6.7030704@agliodbs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <559D9FE6.7030704@agliodbs.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-docs Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-docs-owner@postgresql.org On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 03:10:46PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > > > That note has been there forever, in particular since before we > > supported CONCURRENTLY, which is pretty darn important in many uses > > nowadays. Since it seems like some users have taken this suggestion > > seriously, e.g. on stackoverflow[1], how about we remove this outdated > > suggestion? There is already a previous mention a few sections > > earlier[2] suggesting the use of CONCURRENTLY, so I don't think we > > really need to reiterate that suggestion here. > > +1 Patch applied through 9.5. -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs