"Hiroshi Inoue" <inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
>> Log message:
>> Seems like a bad idea that REINDEX TABLE supports (or
>> thinks it does)
>> reindexing system tables without ignoring system
>> indexes,
> Why ?
I'd ask the question the other way: why would it be a good idea to allow
this in REINDEX TABLE and not in the other two cases? And did it really
work?
The REINDEX code is messy and fragile enough that I think we should do
whatever we can to simplify it.
regards, tom lane
