On 2014-08-29 01:00, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Vik Fearing wrote:
>
>> Here are two patches for this.
>>
>> The first one, reindex_user_tables.v1.patch, implements the variant that
>> only hits user tables, as suggested by you.
>>
>> The second one, reindex_no_dbname.v1.patch, allows the three
>> database-wide variants to omit the database name (voted for by Daniel
>> Migowski, Bruce, and myself; voted against by you). This patch is to be
>> applied on top of the first one.
>
> Not a fan. Here's a revised version that provides REINDEX USER TABLES,
> which can only be used without a database name; other modes are not
> affected i.e. they continue to require a database name.
Yeah, I think I like this better than allowing all of them without the
database name.
> I also renamed
> your proposed reindexdb's --usertables to --user-tables.
I agree with this change.
> Oh, I just noticed that if you say reindexdb --all --user-tables, the
> latter is not honored. Must fix before commit.
Definitely.
> Note: I don't like the reindexdb UI; if you just run "reindexdb -d
> foobar" it will reindex everything, including system catalogs. I think
> USER TABLES should be the default operation mode for reindex. If you
> want plain old "REINDEX DATABASE foobar" which also hits the catalogs,
> you should request that separately (how?). This patch doesn't change
> this.
This should probably be a separate patch if it's going to happen. But
the idea seems reasonable.
> Also note: if you say "user tables", information_schema is reindexed too,
> which kinda sucks.
*shrug* It sort of makes sense if you think of this as the opposite of
REINDEX SYSTEM. I'm not at all sure whether including or excluding it
would be the better choice here.
Do we have some kind of an agreement on what this patch should look
like? Is someone going to prepare an updated patch? Vik?
.marko