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

On 3/9/15 9:43 PM, Sawada Masahiko wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com> wrote:
>> On 3/2/15 10:58 AM, Sawada Masahiko wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/24/15 8:28 AM, Sawada Masahiko wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> According to the above discussion, VACUUM and REINDEX should have
>>>>>> trailing options. Tom seems (to me) suggesting that SQL-style
>>>>>> (bare word preceded by WITH) options and Jim suggesting '()'
>>>>>> style options? (Anyway VACUUM gets the*third additional*  option
>>>>>> sytle, but it is the different discussion from this)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, almost everything does a trailing WITH. We need to either stick
>>>> with
>>>> that for consistency, or add leading () as an option to those WITH
>>>> commands.
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone know why those are WITH? Is it ANSI?
>>>>
>>>> As a refresher, current commands are:
>>>>
>>>>    VACUUM (ANALYZE, VERBOSE) table1 (col1);
>>>>    REINDEX INDEX index1 FORCE;
>>>>    COPY table1 FROM 'file.txt' WITH (FORMAT csv);
>>>>    CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW mv1 WITH (storageparam, ...) AS qry WITH DATA;
>>>>    CREATE EXTENSION ext1 WITH SCHEMA s1 VERSION v1 FROM over;
>>>>    CREATE ROLE role WITH LOGIN;
>>>>    GRANT .... WITH GRANT OPTION;
>>>>    CREATE VIEW v1 AS qry WITH CASCADED CHECK OPTION;
>>>>    ALTER DATABASE db1 WITH CONNECTION LIMIT 50;
>>>>    DECLARE c1 INSENSITIVE SCROLL CURSOR WITH HOLD;
>>
>>
>> BTW, I'm fine with Tom's bare-word with WITH idea. That seems to be the most
>> consistent with everything else. Is there a problem with doing that? I know
>> getting syntax is one of the hard parts of new features, but it seems like
>> we reached consensus here...
>
> Attached is latest version patch based on Tom's idea as follows.
> REINDEX { INDEX | ... } name WITH ( options [, ...] )

Are the parenthesis necessary? No other WITH option requires them, other 
than create table/matview (COPY doesn't actually require them).

>>> We have discussed about this option including FORCE option, but I
>>> think there are not user who want to use both FORCE and VERBOSE option
>>> at same time.
>>
>>
>> I find that very hard to believe... I would expect a primary use case for
>> VERBOSE to be "I ran REINDEX, but it doesn't seem to have done anything...
>> what's going on?" and that's exactly when you might want to use FORCE.
>>
>
> In currently code, nothing happens even if FORCE option is specified.
> This option completely exist for backward compatibility.
> But this patch add new syntax including FORCE option for now.

I forgot that. There's no reason to support it with the new stuff then.
-- 
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com