On 2022-Jul-23, Michael Paquier wrote:
> As the problem comes down to the fact that INDEX/TABLE, SCHEMA and
> DATABASE/SYSTEM need to handle names for different object types each,
> I think that we could do something like the attached, removing one
> block on the way at the cost of an extra parser node.
Yeah, looks good. I propose to also test the error for reindexing a
different database, which is currently uncovered, as attached.
> By the way, it seems that 83011ce also broke the case of "REINDEX
> DATABASE CONCURRENTLY", where the parser missed the addition of a
> DefElem for "concurrently" in this case.
Wow.
--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Escucha y olvidarás; ve y recordarás; haz y entenderás" (Confucio)