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. 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? By the way, the patch had better avoid putting a global REINDEX command that would process everything. As far as I recall, we've avoided such things on purpose because they are expensive, keeping around only cases that generate errors or skip all the relations. So having that in a TAP test would be better, I assume, for isolation. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
