On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Sawada Masahiko <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 12:55 AM, Sawada Masahiko <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> +1 to define new something object type and remove do_user and do_system.
>>> But if we add OBJECT_SYSTEM to ObjectType data type,
>>> system catalogs are OBJECT_SYSTEM as well as OBJECT_TABLE.
>>> It's a bit redundant?
>> Yes, kind of. That's a superset of a type of relations, aka a set of
>> catalog tables. If you find something cleaner to propose, feel free.
>
> I thought we can add new struct like ReindexObjectType which has
> REINDEX_OBJECT_TABLE,
> REINDEX_OBJECT_SYSTEM and so on. It's similar to GRANT syntax.
Check.
>>>> Another thing, ReindexDatabaseOrSchema should be renamed to ReindexObject.
>>>> So, I think that we need to think a bit more here. We are not far from
>>>> smth that could be committed, so marking as "Waiting on Author" for
>>>> now. Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Is the table also kind of "object"?
>> Sorry, I am not sure I follow you here. Indexes and tables have
>> already their relkind set in ReindexStmt, and I think that we're fine
>> to continue letting them go in their own reindex code path for now.
>
> It was not enough, sorry.
> I mean that there is already ReindexTable() function.
> if we renamed ReindexObject, I would feel uncomfortable feeling.
> Because table is also kind of "object".
Check.
If you get that done, I'll have an extra look at it and then let's
have a committer look at it.
Regards,
--
Michael
