On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Sawada Masahiko <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello > <fabriziome...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 10:37 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello > > <fabriziome...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Sawada Masahiko <sawada.m...@gmail.com > > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello > >> > <fabriziome...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Sawada Masahiko > >> > > <sawada.m...@gmail.com> > >> > > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:16 PM, Robert Haas < robertmh...@gmail.com> > >> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Stephen Frost < sfr...@snowman.net> > >> > >> > wrote: > >> > >> >> * Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > >> > >> >>> Sawada Masahiko wrote: > >> > >> >>> > Attached WIP patch adds new syntax REINEX SCHEMA which does > >> > >> >>> > reindexing > >> > >> >>> > all table of specified schema. > >> > >> >>> > There are syntax dose reindexing specified index, per table and > >> > >> >>> > per > >> > >> >>> > database, > >> > >> >>> > but we can not do reindexing per schema for now. > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> >>> It seems doubtful that there really is much use for this feature, > >> > >> >>> but > >> > >> >>> if > >> > >> >>> there is, I think a better syntax precedent is the new ALTER > >> > >> >>> TABLE ALL > >> > >> >>> IN TABLESPACE thingy, rather than your proposed REINDEX SCHEMA. > >> > >> >>> Something like REINDEX TABLE ALL IN SCHEMA perhaps. > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> Yeah, I tend to agree that we should be looking at the 'ALL IN > >> > >> >> TABLESPACE' and 'ALL IN SCHEMA' type of commands to keep things > >> > >> >> consistent. This might be an alternative for the vacuum / analyze > >> > >> >> / > >> > >> >> reindex database commands also.. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Urgh. I don't have a problem with that syntax in general, but it > >> > >> > clashes pretty awfully with what we're already doing for REINDEX > >> > >> > otherwise. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> Attached patches are latest version patch. > >> > > > >> > > Ok. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> I changed syntax to REINDEX ALL IN SCHEMA, but I felt a sense of > >> > >> discomfort a little > >> > >> as Robert mentioned. > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > > I understood, but the real problem will in a near future when the > >> > > features > >> > > will be pushed... :-) > >> > > > >> > > They are separated features, but maybe we can join this features to a > >> > > one > >> > > future commit... it's just an idea. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> Anyway, you can apply these patches in numerical order, > >> > >> can use REINDEX ALL IN SCHEMA feature and "-S/--schema" option in > >> > >> reindexdb. > >> > >> > >> > >> 000_reindex_all_in_schema_v2.patch : It contains REINDEX ALL IN > >> > >> SCHEMA > >> > >> feature > >> > > > >> > > 1) Compile without warnings > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > 2) IMHO you can add more test cases to better code coverage: > >> > > > >> > > * reindex a schema that doesn't exists > >> > > * try to run "reindex all in schema" inside a transaction block > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > 3) Isn't enough just? > >> > > > >> > > bool do_database = (kind == OBJECT_DATABASE); > >> > > > >> > > ... instead of... > >> > > > >> > > + bool do_database = (kind == OBJECT_DATABASE) ? true : false; > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > 4) IMHO you can add other Assert to check valid relkinds, like: > >> > > > >> > > Assert(kind == OBJECT_DATABASE || kind == OBJECT_SCHEMA); > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > 5) I think is more legible: > >> > > > >> > > /* Get OID of object for result */ > >> > > if (do_database) > >> > > objectOid = MyDatabaseId > >> > > else > >> > > objectOid = get_namespace_oid(objectName, false); > >> > > > >> > > ... insead of ... > >> > > > >> > > + /* Get OID of object for result */ > >> > > + objectOid = (do_database) ? MyDatabaseId : > >> > > get_namespace_oid(objectName, > >> > > false); > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> 001_Add_schema_option_to_reindexdb_v1.patch : It contains reindexdb > >> > >> "-S/--schema" supporting > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > > The code itself is good for me, but IMHO you can add test cases to > >> > > src/bin/scripts/t/090_reindexdb.pl > >> > > > >> > > >> > Thank you for reviewing. > >> > >> You're welcome! > >> > >> > >> > I agree 2) - 5). > >> > >> :-) > >> > >> > >> > Attached patch is latest version patch I modified above. > >> > >> All is fine to me now... all work as expected and no compiler warnings. > >> > >> There are just a little fix to do in src/bin/scripts/t/090_reindexdb.pl > >> > >> -use Test::More tests => 7; > >> +use Test::More tests => 8; > >> > >> Because you added a new testcase to suittest, so you need to increase the > >> test count at beginning of the file. > >> > > > > Patch attached. Now the regress run without errors. > > > > Thank you for reviewing and revising!
You're welcome! > I also did successfully. > It looks good to me :) > Changed status to "Ready for commiter". Regards, -- Fabrízio de Royes Mello Consultoria/Coaching PostgreSQL >> Timbira: http://www.timbira.com.br >> Blog: http://fabriziomello.github.io >> Linkedin: http://br.linkedin.com/in/fabriziomello >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/fabriziomello >> Github: http://github.com/fabriziomello
