From: | Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, 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 17:48:39 |
Message-ID: | 53D92FF7.1040702@dalibo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On 07/30/2014 07:35 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 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?
I agree. The request isn't for a naked REINDEX command, it's for a
naked REINDEX DATABASE command.
--
Vik
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2014-07-30 17:48:43 | Re: Bug fix confirmation: could not open relation with OID nnn |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-07-30 17:46:59 | Re: BUG #10823: Better REINDEX syntax. |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-07-30 17:52:30 | Re: B-Tree support function number 3 (strxfrm() optimization) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-07-30 17:46:59 | Re: BUG #10823: Better REINDEX syntax. |