| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fabrízio Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal : REINDEX SCHEMA |
| Date: | 2014-11-27 04:07:15 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqR9xpqBNLo0sgjQsFfAPZ3hPc7LAC_+m9bL4=Eo4Er2kg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 12:55 AM, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> +1 to define new something object type and remove do_user and do_system.
> But if we add OBJECT_SYSTEM to ObjectType data type,
> system catalogs are OBJECT_SYSTEM as well as OBJECT_TABLE.
> It's a bit redundant?
Yes, kind of. That's a superset of a type of relations, aka a set of
catalog tables. If you find something cleaner to propose, feel free.
>> Another thing, ReindexDatabaseOrSchema should be renamed to ReindexObject.
>> So, I think that we need to think a bit more here. We are not far from
>> smth that could be committed, so marking as "Waiting on Author" for
>> now. Thoughts?
>
> Is the table also kind of "object"?
Sorry, I am not sure I follow you here. Indexes and tables have
already their relkind set in ReindexStmt, and I think that we're fine
to continue letting them go in their own reindex code path for now.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2014-11-27 04:39:13 | Re: Compiling C++ extensions on MSVC using scripts in src/tools |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2014-11-27 04:00:57 | Re: [REVIEW] Re: Compression of full-page-writes |