Re: Proposal : REINDEX xxx VERBOSE - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
Subject Re: Proposal : REINDEX xxx VERBOSE
Date
Msg-id 20150205.100634.135050917.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Proposal : REINDEX xxx VERBOSE  (Sawada Masahiko <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Proposal : REINDEX xxx VERBOSE  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hello,

> As per discussion, it seems to good with
> REINDEX { INDEX | TABLE | etc } name [ ( option [, option ...] ) ]
> or
> REINDEX { INDEX | TABLE | etc } [ (option [, optoin ...] ) ] name
> i.g., the options of reindex(VERBOSE and FORCE) are put at before or
> after object name.
> 
> Because other maintenance command put option at before object name, I
> think the latter is better.

The phrase "{INDEX | TABLE |..} name" seems to me indivisible as
target specification. IMHO, the options for VACUUM and so is
placed *just after* command name, not *before* the target.

If this is right, the syntax would be like this.

REINDEX [ (option [, option ...] ) ] {INDEX | TABLE | etc } name

What do you think about this?

regares,

-- 
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} 2.0
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: binworld and install-binworld targets - was Re: Release note bloat is getting out of hand