Re: Proposal : REINDEX xxx VERBOSE

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: Proposal : REINDEX xxx VERBOSE
Дата
Msg-id 3705.1422978352@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Proposal : REINDEX xxx VERBOSE  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2015-02-03 10:20:03 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.

Ah, I'd forgotten that that option was now a no-op.  Yeah, there's no
reason to support it in the new syntax.
        regards, tom lane



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Andres Freund
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Getting rid of wal_level=archive and default to hot_standby + wal_senders
Следующее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments