Re: Proposal : REINDEX xxx VERBOSE

On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 12:32 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 9:21 PM, Michael Paquier
>> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Now, I think that it may
>>> be better to provide the keyword VERBOSE before the type of object
>>> reindexed as REINDEX [ VERBOSE ] object.
>
>> Actually, my first WIP version of patch added VERBOSE word at before
>> type of object.
>> I'm feeling difficult about that the position of VERBOSE word in
>> REINDEX statement.
>
> The way that FORCE was added to REINDEX was poorly thought out; let's not
> double down on that with another option added without any consideration
> for future expansion. I'd be happier if we adopted something similar to
> the modern syntax for VACUUM and EXPLAIN, ie, comma-separated options in
> parentheses.
>

I understood.
I'm imagining new REINDEX syntax are followings.
- REINDEX (INDEX, VERBOSE) hoge_idx;
- REINDEX (TABLE) hoge_table;

i.g., I will add following syntax format,
REINDEX ( { INDEX | TABLE | SCHEMA | SYSTEM | DATABASE } , [VERBOSE] )
name [FORCE];

Thought?

Regards,

-------
Sawada Masahiko