Stephen Frost wrote:
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.
Fair enough, I'll mark it 'returned with feedback'.
We lost this patch for the October
* Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
We lost this patch for the October commitfest, didn't we?
I'm guessing you missed that a new version just got submitted..?
I'd be fine with today's being added to the october commitfest..
Of course, there's a whole independent discussion to be
Stephen Frost wrote:
* Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
We lost this patch for the October commitfest, didn't we?
I'm guessing you missed that a new version just got submitted..?
Which one, reindex schema? Isn't that a completely different patch?
I'd be fine with today's
* Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
Stephen Frost wrote:
* Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
We lost this patch for the October commitfest, didn't we?
I'm guessing you missed that a new version just got submitted..?
Which one, reindex schema? Isn't that
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
* Vik Fearing (vik.fear...@dalibo.com) wrote:
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
* 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
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,
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
Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
On 2014-08-29 01:00, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Note: I don't like the reindexdb UI; if you just run reindexdb -d
foobar it will reindex everything, including system catalogs. I think
USER TABLES should be the default operation mode for reindex. If you
want plain old
On 2014-09-02 22:24, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
Do we have some kind of an agreement on what this patch should look
like? Is someone going to prepare an updated patch? Vik?
I think the only issue left for this to be committable is reindexdb
--all previously mentioned.
I
Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
On 2014-09-02 22:24, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
Do we have some kind of an agreement on what this patch should look
like? Is someone going to prepare an updated patch? Vik?
I think the only issue left for this to be committable is reindexdb
--all
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
On 07/30/2014 07:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 01:29:31PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I don't find it all that odd. We should not be encouraging routine
database-wide reindexes.
Uh, do we encourage database-wide VACUUM FULL or CLUSTER, as
14 matches
Mail list logo
