Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 14:59:31 -0300
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Sergei Kornilov <sk@zsrv.org>,
	Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>,
	Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>,
	Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se>,
	PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
	Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>,
	Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0
Message-ID: <201901161759.voovsk55ofe7@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20190116082705.GB2550@paquier.xyz>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716-1013-2c1e88
Precedence: bulk

On 2019-Jan-16, Michael Paquier wrote:

> Regarding the grammar, we tend for the last couple of years to avoid
> complicating the main grammar and move on to parenthesized grammars
> (see VACUUM, ANALYZE, EXPLAIN, etc).  So in the same vein I think that
> it would make sense to only support CONCURRENTLY within parenthesis
> and just plugin that with the VERBOSE option.

That's my opinion too, but I was outvoted in another subthread -- see
https://postgr.es/m/20181214144529.wvmjwmy7wxgmgyb3@alvherre.pgsql
Stephen Frost, Andrew Gierth and Andres Freund all voted to put
CONCURRENTLY outside the parens.  It seems we now have three votes to
put it *in* the parens (you, Peter Eisentraut, me).  I guess more votes
are needed to settle this issue.

My opinion is that if we had had parenthesized options lists back when
CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY was invented, we would have put it there.
But we were young and needed the money ...

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services