From: | Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fabrízio Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Proposal : REINDEX xxx VERBOSE |
Date: | 2015-05-07 22:55:24 |
Message-ID: | CAD21AoAm1pJSvybNwAcBDDjFXbPpZVCk1Uutf_OvGACyoJPAAw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 5/7/15, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 5:42 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Sawada Masahiko
>>>> <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>>>> VACUUM has both syntax: with parentheses and without parentheses.
>>>>> I think we should have both syntax for REINDEX like VACUUM does
>>>>> because it would be pain to put parentheses whenever we want to do
>>>>> REINDEX.
>>>>> Are the parentheses optional in REINDEX command?
>>>>
>>>> No. The unparenthesized VACUUM syntax was added back before we
>>>> realized that that kind of syntax is a terrible idea. It requires
>>>> every option to be a keyword, and those keywords have to be in a fixed
>>>> order. I believe the intention is to keep the old VACUUM syntax
>>>> around for backward-compatibility, but not to extend it. Same for
>>>> EXPLAIN and COPY.
>>>
>>> REINDEX will have only one option VERBOSE for now.
>>> Even we're in a situation like that it's not clear to be added newly
>>> additional option to REINDEX now, we should need to put parenthesis?
>>
>> In my opinion, yes. The whole point of a flexible options syntax is
>> that we can add new options without changing the grammar. That
>> involves some compromise on the syntax, which doesn't bother me a bit.
>> Our previous experiments with this for EXPLAIN and COPY and VACUUM
>> have worked out quite well, and I see no reason for pessimism here.
>
> I agree that flexible option syntax does not need to change grammar
> whenever we add new options.
> Attached patch is changed based on your suggestion.
> And the patch for reindexdb is also attached.
> Please feedbacks.
>
>>> Also I'm not sure that both implementation and documentation regarding
>>> VERBOSE option should be optional.
>>
>> I don't know what this means.
>>
>
> Sorry for confusing you.
> Please ignore this.
>
Sorry, I forgot attach files.
Regards,
-------
Sawada Masahiko
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
000_reindex_verbose_v12.patch | text/x-patch | 16.6 KB |
001_reindexdb_verbose_option_v1.patch | text/x-patch | 6.2 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-05-07 23:19:13 | Re: Fixing busted citext function declarations |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2015-05-07 21:45:12 | Modify pg_stat_get_activity to build a tuplestore |