Re: Allowing REINDEX to have an optional name - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Allowing REINDEX to have an optional name
Date
Msg-id YpYFeT4BYZowbFUM@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Allowing REINDEX to have an optional name  (Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de>)
Responses Re: Allowing REINDEX to have an optional name  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 11:04:58AM +0200, Bernd Helmle wrote:
> And we already have a situation where this already happens with REINDEX
> DATABASE: if you use CONCURRENTLY, it skips system catalogs already and
> prints a warning. In both cases there are good technical reasons to
> skip catalog indexes and to change the workflow to use separate
> commands.

The case with CONCURRENTLY is different though: the option will never
work on system catalogs so we have to skip them.  Echoing with others
on this thread, I don't think that we should introduce a different
behavior on what's basically the same grammar.  That's just going to
lead to more confusion.  So REINDEX DATABASE with or without a
database name appended to it should always mean to reindex the
catalogs on top of the existing relations.
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Laurenz Albe
Date:
Subject: Re: Add SPLIT PARTITION/MERGE PARTITIONS commands
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: "ERROR: latch already owned" on gharial