Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Dec 23, 2009, at 3:52 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Uh ... I don't see what that fixes? If CONCURRENTLY can be a column
>> name this is still ambiguous.
> How?
Because CONCURRENTLY can still be reduced as tricky_index_name, so
it still doesn't know how to parse CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY ON ...
regards, tom lane