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.
>>> 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".
Regards,
-------
Sawada Masahiko
