Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> The original thinking was to use CONCURRENT, and CREATE CONCURRENT INDEX
> sounded like a different type of index, not a different way to build the
> index. I don't think CONCURRENTLY has that problem, so CREATE
> CONCURRENTLY INDEX sounds good. To read in English, it would be read as
> CREATE CONCURRENTLY, INDEX ii.
OK, we've got two votes for that, so I'll make it so.
regards, tom lane