| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(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: | 2015-02-03 15:45:52 |
| Message-ID: | 3705.1422978352@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2015-02-03 10:20:03 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Well, the object type is not an optional part of the command. It's
>> *necessary*. I was thinking more like
>>
>> REINDEX { INDEX | TABLE | etc } name [ ( option [, option ...] ) ]
>>
>> option := FORCE | VERBOSE
>>
>> We'd still keep the historical syntax where you can write FORCE outside
>> parens, but it'd be deprecated.
> Why would we allow force inside the parens, given it's a backward compat
> only thing afaik? Don't get me wrong, I'm not at all against a
> extensible syntax, I just don't see a point in further cargo culting
> FORCE.
Ah, I'd forgotten that that option was now a no-op. Yeah, there's no
reason to support it in the new syntax.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-02-03 15:50:22 | Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-02-03 15:45:40 | Re: Getting rid of wal_level=archive and default to hot_standby + wal_senders |