Re: [BUGS] BUG #10823: Better REINDEX syntax.

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com>
Cc: Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, dmigowski(at)ikoffice(dot)de, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #10823: Better REINDEX syntax.
Date: 2014-09-10 21:53:10
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers

* Vik Fearing (vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com) wrote:
> On 09/08/2014 06:17 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Vik Fearing (vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com) wrote:
> >> On 09/02/2014 10:17 PM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
> >>> Yeah, I think I like this better than allowing all of them without the
> >>> database name.
> >>
> >> Why? It's just a noise word!
> >
> > Eh, because it ends up reindexing system tables too, which is probably
> > not what new folks are expecting.
> No behavior is changed at all. REINDEX DATABASE dbname; has always hit
> the system tables. Since dbname can *only* be the current database,
> there's no logic nor benefit in requiring it to be specified.

Sure, but I think the point is that reindexing the system tables as part
of a database-wide reindex is a *bad* thing which we shouldn't be
encouraging by making it easier.

I realize you're a bit 'stuck' here because we don't like the current
behavior, but we don't want to change it either.

> > Also, it's not required when you say
> > 'user tables', so it's similar to your user_tables v1 patch in that
> > regard.
> The fact that REINDEX USER TABLES; is the only one that doesn't require
> the dbname seems very inconsistent and confusing.

I understand, but the alternative would be a 'reindex;' which *doesn't*
reindex the system tables- would that be less confusing? Or getting rid
of the current 'reindex database' which also reindexes system tables...

> >> Yes, I will update the patch.
> >
> > Still planning to do this..?
> >
> > Marking this back to waiting-for-author.
> Yes, but probably not for this commitfest unfortunately.

Fair enough, I'll mark it 'returned with feedback'.



In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2014-09-10 22:02:43 Re: pg_basebackup failed to back up large file
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2014-09-10 21:50:05 Re: RLS Design

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2014-09-10 21:54:39 Re: Re: BUG #10329: Could not read block 0 in file "base/56100265/57047884": read only 0 of 8192 bytes
Previous Message Vik Fearing 2014-09-10 21:43:30 Re: [BUGS] BUG #10823: Better REINDEX syntax.