Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2019 10:32:55 -0500
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Vik Fearing <vik.fearing@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
	Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
	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>,
	Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0
Message-ID: <20190119153255.GU2528@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: <201901161759.voovsk55ofe7@alvherre.pgsql>
 <57479e55-ce26-5c00-2525-09e267c7224a@2ndquadrant.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="p3DqMgypQDluE7li"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <57479e55-ce26-5c00-2525-09e267c7224a@2ndquadrant.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk


--p3DqMgypQDluE7li
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Greetings,

* Vik Fearing (vik.fearing@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> On 16/01/2019 18:59, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > On 2019-Jan-16, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >=20
> >> 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.
> >=20
> > 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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

--p3DqMgypQDluE7li
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

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

--p3DqMgypQDluE7li--