Re: Proposal : REINDEX xxx VERBOSE

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.

> 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?

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao