Re: Allowing REINDEX to have an optional name

On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 at 01:02, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 02:30:32PM +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > I was thinking the opposite: REINDEX DATABASE with or without a database
> > name should always process the user relations and skip system catalogs.
> > If the user wants to do both, then they can use REINDEX SYSTEM in
> > addition.
> >
> > The reason for doing it like this is that there is no way to process
> > only user tables and skip catalogs. So this is better for
> > composability.
>
> No objections from me to keep this distinction at the end, as long as
> the the database name in the command has no impact on the chosen
> behavior.

OK, that's clear. Will progress.

> Could there be a point in having a REINDEX ALL though that
> would process both the user relations and the catalogs, doing the same
> thing as REINDEX DATABASE today?

A key point is that REINDEX SYSTEM has problems, so should be avoided.
Hence, including both database and system together in a new command
would not be great idea, at this time.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.EnterpriseDB.com/