Re: Proposal : REINDEX xxx VERBOSE

From: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 22:26:35
Message-ID: 54D14B1B.1090305@BlueTreble.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2/3/15 9:20 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> >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 ...] ) ]

VACUUM puts the options before the table name, so ISTM it'd be best to
keep that with REINDEX. Either REINDEX (options) {INDEX | ...} or
REINDEX {INDEX | ...} (options).
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim Nasby 2015-02-03 22:27:42 Re: Fwd: [GENERAL] 4B row limit for CLOB tables
Previous Message Andres Freund 2015-02-03 21:51:42 pgsql: Process 'die' interrupts while reading/writing from the client s