On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 6:04 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 09:25:58PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> > > The refactoring bits are fine for HEAD. For back-branches I would
> > > suggest using the simplest patch of upthread.
> >
> > Makes sense to me too. The refactoring is mostly to make future
> > additions easier, so there's not much point for back branches.
>
> For now, I have committed and back-patched all the way down the bug
> fix.
Thanks!
> The refactoring is also kind of nice so I'll be happy to look at
> an updated patch. At the same time, let's get rid of
> reindex_system_catalogs() and integrate it with reindex_one_database()
> with a REINDEX_SYSTEM option in the enum. Julien, could you send a
> new version?
Yes, I had further refactoring in mind including this one (there are
also quite some parameters passed to the functions, passing a struct
instead could be worthwhile), but I thought this should be better done
after branching.
> > Right. Also, I was imagining folding the steps together while
> > building the commands so that there's just one switch() for that,
> > along the lines of
>
> Yes, that makes sense.
Indeed.
I attach the switch refactoring that applies on top of current HEAD,
and the reindex_system_catalogs() removal in a different patch in case
that's too much during feature freeze.