On 09/08/2014 06:17 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Vik Fearing (vik.fear...@dalibo.com) wrote: >> On 09/02/2014 10:17 PM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: >>> Yeah, I think I like this better than allowing all of them without the >>> database name. >> >> Why? It's just a noise word! > > Eh, because it ends up reindexing system tables too, which is probably > not what new folks are expecting.
No behavior is changed at all. REINDEX DATABASE dbname; has always hit the system tables. Since dbname can *only* be the current database, there's no logic nor benefit in requiring it to be specified. > Also, it's not required when you say > 'user tables', so it's similar to your user_tables v1 patch in that > regard. The fact that REINDEX USER TABLES; is the only one that doesn't require the dbname seems very inconsistent and confusing. >> Yes, I will update the patch. > > Still planning to do this..? > > Marking this back to waiting-for-author. Yes, but probably not for this commitfest unfortunately. -- Vik -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
