| From: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, kar(at)kakidata(dot)dk, andrew(at)supernews(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: The Contrib Roundup (long) |
| Date: | 2005-06-13 00:03:46 |
| Message-ID: | 20050612210302.M90456@ganymede.hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> It's always bothered me too. How about
>>>
>>> REINDEX SYSTEM -> system tables (current meaning of R. DATABASE)
>>> REINDEX USER -> all non-system tables
>>> REINDEX DATABASE -> both of the above
>
>> Why all the choices? What cases are there for doing one without the
>> other? If you want to get 'fine tuned', do a 'REINDEX TABLE' ... I can
>> see REINDEX SYSTEM and REINDEX DATABASE (includes SYSTEM), but not the
>> USER one ..
>
> The main argument I can think of for REINDEX USER is that it could be
> executed by someone who isn't necessarily superuser. Not sure how
> important that is, though.
Couldn't behaviour of REINDEX DATABASE not take that into account, and
'skip' the system indices if not superuser?
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2005-06-13 01:29:22 | Re: [HACKERS] mirroring oracle database in pgsql |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-06-12 21:30:45 | Re: min/max (was: The Contrib Roundup) |