| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal : REINDEX xxx VERBOSE |
| Date: | 2015-02-04 05:44:37 |
| Message-ID: | 21643.1423028677@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> writes:
> On 2/3/15 5:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> writes:
>>> VACUUM puts the options before the table name, so ISTM it'd be best to
>>> keep that with REINDEX. Either REINDEX (options) {INDEX | ...} or
>>> REINDEX {INDEX | ...} (options).
>> Well, I really really don't like the first of those. IMO the command name
>> is "REINDEX INDEX" etc, so sticking something in the middle of that is
>> bogus.
> Actually, is there a reason we can't just accept all 3? Forcing people
> to remember exact ordering of options has always struck me as silly.
And that's an even worse idea. Useless "flexibility" in syntax tends to
lead to unfortunate consequences like having to reserve keywords.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2015-02-04 05:48:03 | Re: Table description in the data file (Re: pg_rawdump) |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2015-02-04 05:39:09 | Re: Proposal : REINDEX xxx VERBOSE |