| From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Bizarre reindex_relation API |
| Date: | 2011-04-16 17:05:09 |
| Message-ID: | 20110416170509.GB25433@tornado.leadboat.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 11:52:47AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Why in the world is reindex_relation defined like this?
>
> #define REINDEX_CHECK_CONSTRAINTS 0x1
> #define REINDEX_SUPPRESS_INDEX_USE 0x2
> extern bool reindex_relation(Oid relid, bool toast_too, int flags);
>
> Seems like a rational design would have folded toast_too in as another
> flag bit, instead of keeping it a separate argument.
`relid' and `toast_to' constitute the direct object, and `flags' are adverbs.
(Not sure if just made that up or actually rationalized it that way at the
time.) No objection to changing it.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2011-04-16 17:24:27 | Re: MMAP Buffers |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-04-16 17:04:40 | Re: Broken HOT chains in system catalogs |