| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Allowing REINDEX to have an optional name |
| Date: | 2022-06-28 10:02:25 |
| Message-ID: | CANbhV-EmOh-XTssH5TwannC2S1VDN5zK-b+oZKs8UdyUtc2oUw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 at 08:29, Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> 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.
Attached patch is tested, documented and imho ready to be committed,
so I will mark it so in CFapp.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| reindex_not_require_database_name.v3.patch | application/octet-stream | 7.3 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Yura Sokolov | 2022-06-28 11:13:06 | Re: BufferAlloc: don't take two simultaneous locks |
| Previous Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2022-06-28 09:32:12 | Re: Separate the attribute physical order from logical order |