Re: Proposal : REINDEX xxx VERBOSE

On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 2:52 AM, Sawada Masahiko <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 10:53 PM, Sawada Masahiko <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 1:57 AM, Sawada Masahiko <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 1:11 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
>>>>> <fabriziomello@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Sawada Masahiko <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 10:12 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
>>>>>>> <fabriziomello@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 7:22 AM, Sawada Masahiko <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> Thank you for your reviewing.
>>>>>>> >> I modified the patch and attached latest version patch(v7).
>>>>>>> >> Please have a look it.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Looks good to me. Attached patch (v8) just fix a tab indentation in
>>>>>>> > gram.y.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I had forgotten fix a tab indentation, sorry.
>>>>>>> Thank you for reviewing!
>>>>>>> It looks good to me too.
>>>>>>> Can this patch be marked as "Ready for Committer"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Changed status to "Ready for Committer".
>>>>
>>>> The patch adds new syntax like "REINDEX ... WITH VERBOSE", i.e., () is not
>>>> added after WITH clause. Did we reach the consensus about this syntax?
>>>> The last email from Robert just makes me think that () should be added
>>>> into the syntax.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for taking time for this patch!
>>
>> I removed the FORCE option from REINDEX, so you would need to update the patch.
>
> Thanks.
> I will change the patch with this change.
>
>>> This was quite complicated issue since we already have a lot of style
>>> command currently.
>>> We can think many of style from various perspective: kind of DDL, new
>>> or old command, maintenance command. And each command has each its
>>> story.
>>> I believe we have reached the consensus with this style at least once
>>> (please see previous discussion), but we might needs to discuss
>>> more...
>>
>> Okay, another question is that; WITH must be required whenever the options
>> are specified? Or should it be abbreviatable?
>
> In previous discussion, the WITH clause is always required by VERBOSE
> option. I don't think to enable us to abbreviate WITH clause for now.
> Also, at this time that FORCE option is removed, we could bring back
> idea is to put VERBOSE at after object name like CLUSTER. (INDEX,
> TABLE, etc.)
>

Attached v10 patch is latest version patch.
The syntax is,
REINDEX { INDEX | ... } name [ WITH ] [ VERBOSE ]

That is, WITH clause is optional.

Regards,

-------
Sawada Masahiko