| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: CLUSTER ALL syntax |
| Date: | 2002-11-17 21:42:01 |
| Message-ID: | 7099.1037569321@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> In looking at the CLUSTER ALL patch I have applied, I am now wondering
> why the ALL keyword is used. When we do VACUUM, we don't use ALL.
> VACUUM vacuums all tables. Shouldn't' CLUSTER alone do the same thing.
I agree, lose the ALL.
> And what about REINDEX? That seems to have a different syntax from the
> other two. Seems there should be some consistency.
We don't have a REINDEX ALL, and I'm not in a hurry to invent one.
(Especially, I'd not want to see Alvaro spending time on that instead
of fixing the underlying btree-compaction problem ;-))
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2002-11-17 22:49:05 | Re: CLUSTER ALL syntax |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-11-17 21:39:02 | Re: pg_stat_database shows userid as OID |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2002-11-17 22:49:05 | Re: CLUSTER ALL syntax |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-11-17 21:39:02 | Re: pg_stat_database shows userid as OID |