| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | 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: | 2005-06-12 21:27:52 |
| Message-ID: | 2459.1118611672@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-06-12 21:30:45 | Re: min/max (was: The Contrib Roundup) |
| Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2005-06-12 20:52:30 | Re: The Contrib Roundup (long) |