Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 19:14:57 -0500
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Sergei Kornilov <sk@zsrv.org>,
	Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>,
	Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se>,
	PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
	Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>,
	Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0
Message-ID: <20181214001457.GP3415@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: 
 <CAB7nPqSS7xVKGkQbroiJ_wFgxa9n3COnemGzeXv36-A3XLbAeg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMsr+YGhS541Zx7kmda5SXLS3NLeY71HksZrbRsRbbS3VaXfkQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180126022813.GD2416@tamriel.snowman.net>
 <9523ad05-525c-598e-ad2d-061b5a94062c@proxel.se>
 <20180201062158.GD6398@paquier.xyz>
 <60052986-956b-4478-45ed-8bd119e9b9cf@2ndquadrant.com>
 <10797471544200851@myt3-964eae3a5b05.qloud-c.yandex.net>
 <93a3d2fb-43a0-cf14-e8d0-d2c3195c1e5b@2ndquadrant.com>
 <20486991544381729@iva5-d3020dc3459d.qloud-c.yandex.net>
 <52aae11b-bfa5-6ccc-3b98-774f4836ab42@2ndquadrant.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="5NL17DU/vS91FNDL"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <52aae11b-bfa5-6ccc-3b98-774f4836ab42@2ndquadrant.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk


--5NL17DU/vS91FNDL
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Greetings,

* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> On 09/12/2018 19:55, Sergei Kornilov wrote:
> >> reindex table CONCURRENTLY test;
>=20
> By the way, does this syntax make sense?  I haven't seen a discussion on
> this anywhere in the various threads.  I keep thinking that
>=20
>     reindex concurrently table test;
>=20
> would make more sense.  How about in combination with (verbose)?

I don't think it's a mistake that we have 'create index concurrently'
and it certainly would seem odd to me for 'create index' and 'reindex
table' to be different.

Certainly, from my recollection of english, you'd say "I am going to
reindex the table concurrently", you wouldn't say "I am going to
reindex concurrently the table."

Based on at least a quick looking around, the actual grammar rule seems
to match my recollection[1], adverbs should typically go AFTER the
verb + object, and the adverb shouldn't ever be placed between the verb
and the object.

Thanks!

Stephen

[1]: http://www.grammar.cl/Notes/Adverbs.htm

--5NL17DU/vS91FNDL
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=DdyV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--5NL17DU/vS91FNDL--