Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> In looking at the CLUSTER ALL patch I have applied, I am now wondering
> why the ALL keyword is used. When we do VACUUM, we don't use ALL.
> VACUUM vacuums all tables. Shouldn't' CLUSTER alone do the same thing.
I agree, lose the ALL.
> And what about REINDEX? That seems to have a different syntax from the
> other two. Seems there should be some consistency.
We don't have a REINDEX ALL, and I'm not in a hurry to invent one.
(Especially, I'd not want to see Alvaro spending time on that instead
of fixing the underlying btree-compaction problem ;-))
regards, tom lane