Re: Proposal : REINDEX xxx VERBOSE

On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 10:53 PM, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 1:57 AM, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 1:11 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
>>>> <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 10:12 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
>>>>>> <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 7:22 AM, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Thank you for your reviewing.
>>>>>> >> I modified the patch and attached latest version patch(v7).
>>>>>> >> Please have a look it.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Looks good to me. Attached patch (v8) just fix a tab indentation in
>>>>>> > gram.y.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I had forgotten fix a tab indentation, sorry.
>>>>>> Thank you for reviewing!
>>>>>> It looks good to me too.
>>>>>> Can this patch be marked as "Ready for Committer"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Changed status to "Ready for Committer".
>>>
>>> The patch adds new syntax like "REINDEX ... WITH VERBOSE", i.e., () is not
>>> added after WITH clause. Did we reach the consensus about this syntax?
>>> The last email from Robert just makes me think that () should be added
>>> into the syntax.
>>>
>>
>> Thank you for taking time for this patch!
>
> I removed the FORCE option from REINDEX, so you would need to update the patch.

Thanks.
I will change the patch with this change.

>> This was quite complicated issue since we already have a lot of style
>> command currently.
>> We can think many of style from various perspective: kind of DDL, new
>> or old command, maintenance command. And each command has each its
>> story.
>> I believe we have reached the consensus with this style at least once
>> (please see previous discussion), but we might needs to discuss
>> more...
>
> Okay, another question is that; WITH must be required whenever the options
> are specified? Or should it be abbreviatable?

In previous discussion, the WITH clause is always required by VERBOSE
option. I don't think to enable us to abbreviate WITH clause for now.
Also, at this time that FORCE option is removed, we could bring back
idea is to put VERBOSE at after object name like CLUSTER. (INDEX,
TABLE, etc.)

Regards,

-------
Sawada Masahiko