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, reindex_no_dbname.v1.patch, allows the three
>>> database-wide variants to omit the database name (voted for by Daniel
>>> Migowski, Bruce, and myself; voted against by you). This patch is to be
>>> applied on top of the first one.
>>
>> Not a fan. Here's a revised version that provides REINDEX USER TABLES,
>> which can only be used without a database name; other modes are not
>> affected i.e. they continue to require a database name.
>
> Yeah, I think I like this better than allowing all of them without the
> database name.
Why? It's just a noise word!
>> I also renamed
>> your proposed reindexdb's --usertables to --user-tables.
>
> I agree with this change.
Me, too.
>> Oh, I just noticed that if you say reindexdb --all --user-tables, the
>> latter is not honored. Must fix before commit.
>
> Definitely.
Okay, I'll look at that.
> Is someone going to prepare an updated patch? Vik?
Yes, I will update the patch.
--
Vik
