On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 12:55 AM, Sawada Masahiko <sawada.m...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> +1 to define new something object type and remove do_user and do_system. >> But if we add OBJECT_SYSTEM to ObjectType data type, >> system catalogs are OBJECT_SYSTEM as well as OBJECT_TABLE. >> It's a bit redundant? > Yes, kind of. That's a superset of a type of relations, aka a set of > catalog tables. If you find something cleaner to propose, feel free.
I thought we can add new struct like ReindexObjectType which has REINDEX_OBJECT_TABLE, REINDEX_OBJECT_SYSTEM and so on. It's similar to GRANT syntax. >>> Another thing, ReindexDatabaseOrSchema should be renamed to ReindexObject. >>> So, I think that we need to think a bit more here. We are not far from >>> smth that could be committed, so marking as "Waiting on Author" for >>> now. Thoughts? >> >> Is the table also kind of "object"? > Sorry, I am not sure I follow you here. Indexes and tables have > already their relkind set in ReindexStmt, and I think that we're fine > to continue letting them go in their own reindex code path for now. It was not enough, sorry. I mean that there is already ReindexTable() function. if we renamed ReindexObject, I would feel uncomfortable feeling. Because table is also kind of "object". Regards, ------- Sawada Masahiko -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
