From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Vik Fearing <vik.fearing@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Sergei Kornilov <sk@zsrv.org>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
Cc: Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se>
Cc: PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Cc: Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2019 10:32:55 -0500
Message-ID: <20190119153255.GU2528@tamriel.snowman.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <57479e55-ce26-5c00-2525-09e267c7224a@2ndquadrant.com>
References: <201901161759.voovsk55ofe7@alvherre.pgsql>
<57479e55-ce26-5c00-2525-09e267c7224a@2ndquadrant.com>
Greetings,
* Vik Fearing (vik.fearing@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> On 16/01/2019 18:59, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > 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 vote is to have homogeneous syntax for all of this, and so put it in
> parentheses, but we should also allow CREATE INDEX and DROP INDEX to use
> parentheses for it, too.
>
> I supposed we'll keep what would then be the legacy syntax for a few
> decades or more.
I'm still of the opinion that we should have CONCURRENTLY allowed
without the parentheses. I could see allowing it with them, as well,
but I do feel that we should be using the parentheses-based approach
more as a last-resort kind of thing instead of just baking in everything
to require them.
We have said before that we don't want to have things implemented in a
purely functional way (see the discussions around pglogical and such)
and while this isn't quite the same, I do think it heads in that
direction. It's certainly harder to have to think about how to
structure these commands so that they look like they belong in SQL but I
think it has benefits too.
Thanks!
Stephen
Attachments:
[application/pgp-signature] signature.asc (818B, ../20190119153255.GU2528@tamriel.snowman.net/2-signature.asc)
download
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: sfrost@snowman.net, vik.fearing@2ndquadrant.com, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, michael@paquier.xyz, sk@zsrv.org, peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com, michael.paquier@gmail.com, andreas@proxel.se, craig@2ndquadrant.com
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0
In-Reply-To: <20190119153255.GU2528@tamriel.snowman.net>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox