Re: BUG #10823: Better REINDEX syntax.

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: dmigowski(at)ikoffice(dot)de, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #10823: Better REINDEX syntax.
Date: 2014-07-30 17:35:55
Message-ID: 20140730173555.GI2791@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 01:29:31PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 10:33:07AM +0000, dmigowski(at)ikoffice(dot)de wrote:
> >> Compared to CLUSTER and VACUUM FULL we need to specify a database to the
> >> REINDEX command. Why? It would be logical to reindex the current database,
> >> exactly like CLUSTER does. So why isn't the DATABASE parameter optional?
>
> > Wow, yeah, that is kind of odd, e.g.
>
> I don't find it all that odd. We should not be encouraging routine
> database-wide reindexes.

Uh, do we encourage database-wide VACUUM FULL or CLUSTER, as we use them
there with no parameter. Is there a reason REINDEX should be harder,
and require a dummy argument to run?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ Everyone has their own god. +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2014-07-30 17:46:59 Re: BUG #10823: Better REINDEX syntax.
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-07-30 17:29:31 Re: BUG #10823: Better REINDEX syntax.

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2014-07-30 17:36:01 Re: Making joins involving ctid work for the benefit of UPSERT
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-07-30 17:29:31 Re: BUG #10823: Better REINDEX syntax.