Re: Proposal : REINDEX xxx VERBOSE

On 2/3/15 5:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com> writes:
>> On 2/3/15 9:20 AM, 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 ...] ) ]
>
>> VACUUM puts the options before the table name, so ISTM it'd be best to
>> keep that with REINDEX. Either REINDEX (options) {INDEX | ...} or
>> REINDEX {INDEX | ...} (options).
>
> Well, I really really don't like the first of those.  IMO the command name
> is "REINDEX INDEX" etc, so sticking something in the middle of that is
> bogus.

Actually, is there a reason we can't just accept all 3? Forcing people 
to remember exact ordering of options has always struck me as silly.
-- 
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com