Re: Proposal : REINDEX xxx VERBOSE

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!

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...

Regards,

-------
Sawada Masahiko