On 2014-08-29 01:00, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Vik Fearing wrote:

Here are two patches for this.

The first one, reindex_user_tables.v1.patch, implements the variant that
only hits user tables, as suggested by you.

The second one, reindex_no_dbname.v1.patch, allows the three
database-wide variants to omit the database name (voted for by Daniel
Migowski, Bruce, and myself; voted against by you).  This patch is to be
applied on top of the first one.

Not a fan.  Here's a revised version that provides REINDEX USER TABLES,
which can only be used without a database name; other modes are not
affected i.e. they continue to require a database name.

Yeah, I think I like this better than allowing all of them without the database name.

I also renamed
your proposed reindexdb's --usertables to --user-tables.

I agree with this change.

Oh, I just noticed that if you say reindexdb --all --user-tables, the
latter is not honored.  Must fix before commit.


Note: I don't like the reindexdb UI; if you just run "reindexdb -d
foobar" it will reindex everything, including system catalogs.  I think
USER TABLES should be the default operation mode for reindex.   If you
want plain old "REINDEX DATABASE foobar" which also hits the catalogs,
you should request that separately (how?).  This patch doesn't change

This should probably be a separate patch if it's going to happen. But the idea seems reasonable.

Also note: if you say "user tables", information_schema is reindexed too,
which kinda sucks.

*shrug* It sort of makes sense if you think of this as the opposite of REINDEX SYSTEM. I'm not at all sure whether including or excluding it would be the better choice here.

Do we have some kind of an agreement on what this patch should look like? Is someone going to prepare an updated patch? Vik?


Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to