Re: Better name/syntax for "online" index creation

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: Better name/syntax for "online" index creation
Дата
Msg-id 5139.1153802601@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Better name/syntax for "online" index creation  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
Ответы Re: Better name/syntax for "online" index creation  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Re: Better name/syntax for "online" index creation  ("Bort, Paul" <pbort@tmwsystems.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Oh, psql needs to know before the command is sent?  How do we handle it
>> now with CLUSTER?

> We don't, which is exactly the problem.  If I'm not mistaken, currently
> psql in autocommit off mode, CLUSTER doesn't start a transaction block,
> which is arguably wrong because some forms of CLUSTER (single-table) are
> able to work within a transaction.

psql could actually tell these apart if it worked just a bit harder.
CLUSTER with no arguments is the one case, CLUSTER with anything after
it is the other.  Not sure why we couldn't be bothered to get that
right in psql the first time :-(.

But to get back to the point at hand, I think that there should be some
equally obvious syntactic clue about what CREATE INDEX does --- and
burying an ONLINE keyword near the end of the command doesn't qualify.
        regards, tom lane


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: On-disk bitmap index patch
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [PATCHES] pgstattuple extension for indexes