Re: Should REINDEX be listed under DDL?
От | Laurenz Albe |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Should REINDEX be listed under DDL? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | fc543657c4dbcee018b9e305b75a5784391db4fa.camel@cybertec.at обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Should REINDEX be listed under DDL? (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Ответы |
Re: Should REINDEX be listed under DDL?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2023-12-04 at 14:26 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On a recent thread about adding support for event triggers with > REINDEX, a change has been proposed to make REINDEX queries reflect in > the logs under the DDL category: > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ZW0ltJXJ2Aigvizl%40paquier.xyz > > REINDEX being classified as LOGSTMT_ALL comes from 893632be4e17 back > in 2006, and the code does not know what to do about it. Doing the > change would be as simple as that: > case T_ReindexStmt: > - lev = LOGSTMT_ALL; /* should this be DDL? */ > + lev = LOGSTMT_DDL; > > REINDEX is philosophically a maintenance command and a Postgres > extension not in the SQL standard, so it does not really qualify as a > DDL because it does not do in object definitions, so we could just > delete this comment. Or could it be more useful to consider that as a > special case and report it as a DDL, impacting log_statements? It should be qualified just like CREATE INDEX. Both are not covered by the standard, which does not mention indexes, since they are an "implementation detail". I think that it is pretty clear that CREATE INDEX should be considered DDL, since it defines (creates) and object. The same should apply to REINDEX. Yours, Laurenz Albe
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: