On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 at 01:02, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 02:30:32PM +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > I was thinking the opposite: REINDEX DATABASE with or without a database > > name should always process the user relations and skip system catalogs. > > If the user wants to do both, then they can use REINDEX SYSTEM in > > addition. > > > > The reason for doing it like this is that there is no way to process > > only user tables and skip catalogs. So this is better for > > composability. > > No objections from me to keep this distinction at the end, as long as > the the database name in the command has no impact on the chosen > behavior.
OK, that's clear. Will progress. > Could there be a point in having a REINDEX ALL though that > would process both the user relations and the catalogs, doing the same > thing as REINDEX DATABASE today? A key point is that REINDEX SYSTEM has problems, so should be avoided. Hence, including both database and system together in a new command would not be great idea, at this time. -- Simon Riggs http://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
