Re: BUG #10823: Better REINDEX syntax.

On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 07:48:39PM +0200, Vik Fearing wrote:
> On 07/30/2014 07:35 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 01:29:31PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> >>> On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 10:33:07AM +0000, dmigowski(at)ikoffice(dot)de wrote:
> >>>> Compared to CLUSTER and VACUUM FULL we need to specify a database to the
> >>>> REINDEX command. Why? It would be logical to reindex the current database,
> >>>> exactly like CLUSTER does. So why isn't the DATABASE parameter optional?
> >>
> >>> Wow, yeah, that is kind of odd, e.g.
> >>
> >> I don't find it all that odd. We should not be encouraging routine
> >> database-wide reindexes.
> >
> > Uh, do we encourage database-wide VACUUM FULL or CLUSTER, as we use them
> > there with no parameter. Is there a reason REINDEX should be harder,
> > and require a dummy argument to run?
>
> I agree. The request isn't for a naked REINDEX command, it's for a
> naked REINDEX DATABASE command.

Yes, the question is should we support REINDEX DATABASE without a
database name that matches the current database. REINDEX alone might be
too risky.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ Everyone has their own god. +