Re: Proposal : REINDEX xxx VERBOSE

From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com
Cc: tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com, michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Proposal : REINDEX xxx VERBOSE
Date: 2015-02-05 01:06:34
Message-ID: 20150205.100634.135050917.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hello,

> As per discussion, it seems to good with
> REINDEX { INDEX | TABLE | etc } name [ ( option [, option ...] ) ]
> or
> REINDEX { INDEX | TABLE | etc } [ (option [, optoin ...] ) ] name
> i.g., the options of reindex(VERBOSE and FORCE) are put at before or
> after object name.
>
> Because other maintenance command put option at before object name, I
> think the latter is better.

The phrase "{INDEX | TABLE |..} name" seems to me indivisible as
target specification. IMHO, the options for VACUUM and so is
placed *just after* command name, not *before* the target.

If this is right, the syntax would be like this.

REINDEX [ (option [, option ...] ) ] {INDEX | TABLE | etc } name

What do you think about this?

regares,

--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kyotaro HORIGUCHI 2015-02-05 01:20:15 Re: pg_basebackup may fail to send feedbacks.
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2015-02-05 00:49:46 Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} 2.0