From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Should REINDEX be listed under DDL? |
Date: | 2023-12-04 05:26:48 |
Message-ID: | ZW1jGBvCh-gnoxRI@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi all,
On a recent thread about adding support for event triggers with
REINDEX, a change has been proposed to make REINDEX queries reflect in
the logs under the DDL category:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ZW0ltJXJ2Aigvizl%40paquier.xyz
REINDEX being classified as LOGSTMT_ALL comes from 893632be4e17 back
in 2006, and the code does not know what to do about it. Doing the
change would be as simple as that:
case T_ReindexStmt:
- lev = LOGSTMT_ALL; /* should this be DDL? */
+ lev = LOGSTMT_DDL;
REINDEX is philosophically a maintenance command and a Postgres
extension not in the SQL standard, so it does not really qualify as a
DDL because it does not do in object definitions, so we could just
delete this comment. Or could it be more useful to consider that as a
special case and report it as a DDL, impacting log_statements?
Any thoughts?
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2023-12-04 05:42:17 | Re: Remove unnecessary includes of system headers in header files |
Previous Message | shveta malik | 2023-12-04 05:15:18 | Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby |