| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Allowing REINDEX to have an optional name |
| Date: | 2022-05-31 12:09:29 |
| Message-ID: | YpYFeT4BYZowbFUM@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 11:04:58AM +0200, Bernd Helmle wrote:
> And we already have a situation where this already happens with REINDEX
> DATABASE: if you use CONCURRENTLY, it skips system catalogs already and
> prints a warning. In both cases there are good technical reasons to
> skip catalog indexes and to change the workflow to use separate
> commands.
The case with CONCURRENTLY is different though: the option will never
work on system catalogs so we have to skip them. Echoing with others
on this thread, I don't think that we should introduce a different
behavior on what's basically the same grammar. That's just going to
lead to more confusion. So REINDEX DATABASE with or without a
database name appended to it should always mean to reindex the
catalogs on top of the existing relations.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2022-05-31 12:20:53 | Re: "ERROR: latch already owned" on gharial |
| Previous Message | Laurenz Albe | 2022-05-31 11:02:27 | Re: Add SPLIT PARTITION/MERGE PARTITIONS commands |