On 09/02/2014 10:17 PM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: > 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.
Why? It's just a noise word! >> I also renamed >> your proposed reindexdb's --usertables to --user-tables. > > I agree with this change. Me, too. >> Oh, I just noticed that if you say reindexdb --all --user-tables, the >> latter is not honored. Must fix before commit. > > Definitely. Okay, I'll look at that. > Is someone going to prepare an updated patch? Vik? Yes, I will update the patch. -- Vik -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers