From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Proposal : REINDEX xxx VERBOSE |
Date: | 2015-02-03 15:20:03 |
Message-ID: | 2737.1422976803@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 12:32 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> The way that FORCE was added to REINDEX was poorly thought out; let's not
>> double down on that with another option added without any consideration
>> for future expansion. I'd be happier if we adopted something similar to
>> the modern syntax for VACUUM and EXPLAIN, ie, comma-separated options in
>> parentheses.
> I understood.
> I'm imagining new REINDEX syntax are followings.
> - REINDEX (INDEX, VERBOSE) hoge_idx;
> - REINDEX (TABLE) hoge_table;
> i.g., I will add following syntax format,
> REINDEX ( { INDEX | TABLE | SCHEMA | SYSTEM | DATABASE } , [VERBOSE] )
> name [FORCE];
Well, the object type is not an optional part of the command. It's
*necessary*. I was thinking more like
REINDEX { INDEX | TABLE | etc } name [ ( option [, option ...] ) ]
option := FORCE | VERBOSE
We'd still keep the historical syntax where you can write FORCE outside
parens, but it'd be deprecated.
Where to insert the parenthesized option list is a judgment call,
but I'd lean to keeping it at the end where FORCE used to be.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-02-03 15:23:30 | Re: Proposal : REINDEX xxx VERBOSE |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-02-03 15:19:22 | Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments |