From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Bizarre reindex_relation API |
Date: | 2011-04-16 17:56:16 |
Message-ID: | 6E6C4473-020D-477B-B90E-9B082AB66072@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Apr 16, 2011, at 11:52 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Why in the world is reindex_relation defined like this?
>
> #define REINDEX_CHECK_CONSTRAINTS 0x1
> #define REINDEX_SUPPRESS_INDEX_USE 0x2
> extern bool reindex_relation(Oid relid, bool toast_too, int flags);
>
> Seems like a rational design would have folded toast_too in as another
> flag bit, instead of keeping it a separate argument.
I thought about that for roughly three minutes, decided there was something awkward about it that I no longer recall, and it go. I don't object if you want to rejigger it.
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua Berkus | 2011-04-16 18:09:25 | Re: Formatting Curmudgeons WAS: MMAP Buffers |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2011-04-16 17:24:27 | Re: MMAP Buffers |