Proposal : REINDEX xxx VERBOSE

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: Proposal : REINDEX xxx VERBOSE
Date: 2015-05-07 12:05:55
Message-ID: CAD21AoDyzHcTUF9g4U4R1OWwtNNwiY1mKek-ihKLBwo0PQCerQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

Regards,

-------
Sawada Masahiko

--
Regards,

-------
Sawada Masahiko

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2015-05-07 13:15:18 Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT syntax issues
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2015-05-07 12:02:59 Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT syntax issues