Re: Proposal : REINDEX xxx VERBOSE

On 2015-02-03 10:20:03 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Sawada Masahiko <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 12:32 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> The way that FORCE was added to REINDEX was poorly thought out; let's not
> >> double down on that with another option added without any consideration
> >> for future expansion.  I'd be happier if we adopted something similar to
> >> the modern syntax for VACUUM and EXPLAIN, ie, comma-separated options in
> >> parentheses.
> 
> > I understood.
> > I'm imagining new REINDEX syntax are followings.
> > - REINDEX (INDEX, VERBOSE) hoge_idx;
> > - REINDEX (TABLE) hoge_table;
> 
> > i.g., I will add following syntax format,
> > REINDEX ( { INDEX | TABLE | SCHEMA | SYSTEM | DATABASE } , [VERBOSE] )
> > name [FORCE];
> 
> Well, the object type is not an optional part of the command.  It's
> *necessary*.  I was thinking more like
> 
> REINDEX { INDEX | TABLE | etc } name [ ( option [, option ...] ) ]
> 
> option := FORCE | VERBOSE
> 
> We'd still keep the historical syntax where you can write FORCE outside
> parens, but it'd be deprecated.

Why would we allow force inside the parens, given it's a backward compat
only thing afaik? Don't get me wrong, I'm not at all against a
extensible syntax, I just don't see a point in further cargo culting
FORCE.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

-- Andres Freund                       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services