On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 04:42:01PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> 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.
Well, in my original patch (the one submitted just when 7.3 was going
into beta) there was no ALL. I decided to put it in for subsequent
patches for no good reason.
> > 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 ALL, and I'm not in a hurry to invent one.
> (Especially, I'd not want to see Alvaro spending time on that instead
> of fixing the underlying btree-compaction problem ;-))
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 do REINDEX ALL.
It makes me really proud to hear such a note of confidence in my work.
Thank you very much.
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
Officer Krupke, what are we to do?
Gee, officer Krupke, Krup you! (West Side Story, "Gee, Officer Krupke")
