Re: BUG #10823: Better REINDEX syntax.

From: Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: dmigowski(at)ikoffice(dot)de, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #10823: Better REINDEX syntax.
Date: 2014-07-30 17:48:39
Message-ID: 53D92FF7.1040702@dalibo.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers

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.
--
Vik

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2014-07-30 17:48:43 Re: Bug fix confirmation: could not open relation with OID nnn
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-07-30 17:46:59 Re: BUG #10823: Better REINDEX syntax.

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2014-07-30 17:52:30 Re: B-Tree support function number 3 (strxfrm() optimization)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-07-30 17:46:59 Re: BUG #10823: Better REINDEX syntax.