Re: Proposal : REINDEX xxx VERBOSE

From: Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 23:09:38
Message-ID: CAFcNs+q5EysbpNjgPeuqedHUhL_jkv_=Dnu-6zur3Sp35ccGvg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 8:26 PM, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> wrote:
>
> 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).
>

Makes sense... +1

Regards,

--
Fabrízio de Royes Mello
Consultoria/Coaching PostgreSQL
>> Timbira: http://www.timbira.com.br
>> Blog: http://fabriziomello.github.io
>> Linkedin: http://br.linkedin.com/in/fabriziomello
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/fabriziomello
>> Github: http://github.com/fabriziomello

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2015-02-03 23:10:22 Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Process 'die' interrupts while reading/writing from the client s
Previous Message Tom Lane 2015-02-03 23:08:32 Re: Proposal : REINDEX xxx VERBOSE