* Vik Fearing (vik.fear...@dalibo.com) wrote: > On 09/08/2014 06:17 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Vik Fearing (vik.fear...@dalibo.com) wrote: > >> On 09/02/2014 10:17 PM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: > >>> Yeah, I think I like this better than allowing all of them without the > >>> database name. > >> > >> Why? It's just a noise word! > > > > Eh, because it ends up reindexing system tables too, which is probably > > not what new folks are expecting. > > No behavior is changed at all. REINDEX DATABASE dbname; has always hit > the system tables. Since dbname can *only* be the current database, > there's no logic nor benefit in requiring it to be specified.
Sure, but I think the point is that reindexing the system tables as part
of a database-wide reindex is a *bad* thing which we shouldn't be
encouraging by making it easier.
I realize you're a bit 'stuck' here because we don't like the current
behavior, but we don't want to change it either.
> > Also, it's not required when you say
> > 'user tables', so it's similar to your user_tables v1 patch in that
> > regard.
>
> The fact that REINDEX USER TABLES; is the only one that doesn't require
> the dbname seems very inconsistent and confusing.
I understand, but the alternative would be a 'reindex;' which *doesn't*
reindex the system tables- would that be less confusing? Or getting rid
of the current 'reindex database' which also reindexes system tables...
> >> Yes, I will update the patch.
> >
> > Still planning to do this..?
> >
> > Marking this back to waiting-for-author.
>
> Yes, but probably not for this commitfest unfortunately.
Fair enough, I'll mark it 'returned with feedback'.
Thanks!
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
