Re: Proposal : REINDEX xxx VERBOSE

On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 4:26 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
<fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
> <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 7:55 PM, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On 5/7/15, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> > > On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 5:42 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com
>> > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> > >> On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Sawada Masahiko
>> > >> <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com
>> > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> > >>> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com
>> > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> > >>>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Sawada Masahiko
>> > >>>> <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com
>> > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> > >>>>> VACUUM has both syntax: with parentheses and without parentheses.
>> > >>>>> I think we should have both syntax for REINDEX like VACUUM does
>> > >>>>> because it would be pain to put parentheses whenever we want to do
>> > >>>>> REINDEX.
>> > >>>>> Are the parentheses optional in REINDEX command?
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> No. The unparenthesized VACUUM syntax was added back before we
>> > >>>> realized that that kind of syntax is a terrible idea. It requires
>> > >>>> every option to be a keyword, and those keywords have to be in a
>> > >>>> fixed
>> > >>>> order. I believe the intention is to keep the old VACUUM syntax
>> > >>>> around for backward-compatibility, but not to extend it. Same for
>> > >>>> EXPLAIN and COPY.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> REINDEX will have only one option VERBOSE for now.
>> > >>> Even we're in a situation like that it's not clear to be added newly
>> > >>> additional option to REINDEX now, we should need to put parenthesis?
>> > >>
>> > >> In my opinion, yes. The whole point of a flexible options syntax is
>> > >> that we can add new options without changing the grammar. That
>> > >> involves some compromise on the syntax, which doesn't bother me a
>> > >> bit.
>> > >> Our previous experiments with this for EXPLAIN and COPY and VACUUM
>> > >> have worked out quite well, and I see no reason for pessimism here.
>> > >
>> > > I agree that flexible option syntax does not need to change grammar
>> > > whenever we add new options.
>> > > Attached patch is changed based on your suggestion.
>> > > And the patch for reindexdb is also attached.
>> > > Please feedbacks.
>> > >
>> > >>> Also I'm not sure that both implementation and documentation
>> > >>> regarding
>> > >>> VERBOSE option should be optional.
>> > >>
>> > >> I don't know what this means.
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > Sorry for confusing you.
>> > > Please ignore this.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Sorry, I forgot attach files.
>> >
>>
>> I applied the two patches to master and I got some errors when compile:
>>
>> tab-complete.c: In function ‘psql_completion’:
>> tab-complete.c:3338:12: warning: left-hand operand of comma expression has
>> no effect [-Wunused-value]
>> {"TABLE", "INDEX", "SYSTEM", "SCHEMA", "DATABASE", NULL};
>> ^
>> tab-complete.c:3338:21: warning: left-hand operand of comma expression has
>> no effect [-Wunused-value]
>> {"TABLE", "INDEX", "SYSTEM", "SCHEMA", "DATABASE", NULL};
>> ^
>> tab-complete.c:3338:31: warning: left-hand operand of comma expression has
>> no effect [-Wunused-value]
>> {"TABLE", "INDEX", "SYSTEM", "SCHEMA", "DATABASE", NULL};
>> ^
>> tab-complete.c:3338:41: warning: left-hand operand of comma expression has
>> no effect [-Wunused-value]
>> {"TABLE", "INDEX", "SYSTEM", "SCHEMA", "DATABASE", NULL};
>> ^
>> tab-complete.c:3338:53: warning: left-hand operand of comma expression has
>> no effect [-Wunused-value]
>> {"TABLE", "INDEX", "SYSTEM", "SCHEMA", "DATABASE", NULL};
>> ^
>> tab-complete.c:3338:5: warning: statement with no effect [-Wunused-value]
>> {"TABLE", "INDEX", "SYSTEM", "SCHEMA", "DATABASE", NULL};
>> ^
>> tab-complete.c:3338:59: error: expected ‘;’ before ‘}’ token
>> {"TABLE", "INDEX", "SYSTEM", "SCHEMA", "DATABASE", NULL};
>> ^
>> tab-complete.c:3340:22: error: ‘list_REINDEX’ undeclared (first use in
>> this function)
>> COMPLETE_WITH_LIST(list_REINDEX);
>> ^
>> tab-complete.c:169:22: note: in definition of macro ‘COMPLETE_WITH_LIST’
>> completion_charpp = list; \
>> ^
>> tab-complete.c:3340:22: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only
>> once for each function it appears in
>> COMPLETE_WITH_LIST(list_REINDEX);
>> ^
>> tab-complete.c:169:22: note: in definition of macro ‘COMPLETE_WITH_LIST’
>> completion_charpp = list; \
>> ^
>> make[3]: *** [tab-complete.o] Error 1
>> make[3]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
>> make[2]: *** [install-psql-recurse] Error 2
>> make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
>> make[1]: *** [install-bin-recurse] Error 2
>> make: *** [install-src-recurse] Error 2
>>
>>
>> Looking at the code I think you remove one line accidentally from
>> tab-complete.c:
>>
>> $ git diff src/bin/psql/tab-complete.c
>> diff --git a/src/bin/psql/tab-complete.c b/src/bin/psql/tab-complete.c
>> index 750e29d..55b0df5 100644
>> --- a/src/bin/psql/tab-complete.c
>> +++ b/src/bin/psql/tab-complete.c
>> @@ -3335,7 +3335,6 @@ psql_completion(const char *text, int start, int
>> end)
>> /* REINDEX */
>> else if (pg_strcasecmp(prev_wd, "REINDEX") == 0)
>> {
>> - static const char *const list_REINDEX[] =
>> {"TABLE", "INDEX", "SYSTEM", "SCHEMA", "DATABASE", NULL};
>>
>> COMPLETE_WITH_LIST(list_REINDEX);
>>
>>
>> The attached fix it and now seems good to me.
> Just one last note. IMHO we should add a regression to
> src/bin/scripts/090_reindexdb.pl.
>

Thank you for your patch!
(Sorry for attaching the patch still has compile error..)

- 000_reindex_verbose_v13.patch
Looks good to me.

- 001_reindexdb_verbose_option_v1.patch
I noticed a bug in reindexdb patch, so fixed version is attached.
The regression test for reindexdb is added as well.

Regards,

-------
Sawada Masahiko