| From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 05:39:09 |
| Message-ID: | 54D1B07D.5030108@BlueTreble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2/3/15 5:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> writes:
>> On 2/3/15 9:20 AM, 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 ...] ) ]
>
>> 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.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-02-04 05:44:37 | Re: Proposal : REINDEX xxx VERBOSE |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-02-04 05:37:47 | Re: pg_dump's aborted transactions |