Re: [HACKERS] CLUSTER ALL syntax

2002-11-18 Thread Bruce Momjian
Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 04:42:01PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > In looking at the CLUSTER ALL patch I have applied, I am now wondering > > > why the ALL keyword is used. When we do VACUUM, we don't use ALL. > > > VACUUM vacuums

Re: [HACKERS] CLUSTER ALL syntax

2002-11-17 Thread Hiroshi Inoue
Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 06:43:38PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Tom Lane wrote: > > > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > And what about REINDEX? That seems to have a different > > > > syntax from the other two. Seems there shoul

Re: [HACKERS] CLUSTER ALL syntax

2002-11-17 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
> In looking at the CLUSTER ALL patch I have applied, I am now wondering > why the ALL keyword is used. When we do VACUUM, we don't use ALL. > VACUUM vacuums all tables. Shouldn't' CLUSTER alone do the same thing. > And what about REINDEX? That seems to have a different syntax from the > other

Re: [HACKERS] CLUSTER ALL syntax

2002-11-17 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What I don't understand is what are the parameters in the > ReindexDatabase function for. For example, the boolean all is always > false in tcop/utility.c (and there are no other places that the function > is called). Also, the database name is checked

Re: [HACKERS] CLUSTER ALL syntax

2002-11-17 Thread Alvaro Herrera
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 06:43:38PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > And what about REINDEX? That seems to have a different syntax from the > > > other two. Seems there should be some consistency. > > > > We don't have a REINDEX AL

Re: [HACKERS] CLUSTER ALL syntax

2002-11-17 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > In looking at the CLUSTER ALL patch I have applied, I am now wondering > > why the ALL keyword is used. When we do VACUUM, we don't use ALL. > > VACUUM vacuums all tables. Shouldn't' CLUSTER alone do the same thing. > > I agree, l

Re: [HACKERS] CLUSTER ALL syntax

2002-11-17 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Actually, I'm planning to do the freelist thing, then the btree > compaction and then replace the current REINDEX code with the compaction > code, probably including some means to

Re: [HACKERS] CLUSTER ALL syntax

2002-11-17 Thread Alvaro Herrera
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 04:42:01PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > In looking at the CLUSTER ALL patch I have applied, I am now wondering > > why the ALL keyword is used. When we do VACUUM, we don't use ALL. > > VACUUM vacuums all tables. Shouldn't' CLUSTER

Re: [HACKERS] CLUSTER ALL syntax

2002-11-17 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In looking at the CLUSTER ALL patch I have applied, I am now wondering > why the ALL keyword is used. When we do VACUUM, we don't use ALL. > VACUUM vacuums all tables. Shouldn't' CLUSTER alone do the same thing. I agree, lose the ALL. > And what abo

[HACKERS] CLUSTER ALL syntax

2002-11-17 Thread Bruce Momjian
In looking at the CLUSTER ALL patch I have applied, I am now wondering why the ALL keyword is used. When we do VACUUM, we don't use ALL. VACUUM vacuums all tables. Shouldn't' CLUSTER alone do the same thing. And what about REINDEX? That seems to have a different syntax from the other two. See