On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Sawada Masahiko <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 12:55 AM, Sawada Masahiko <sawada.m...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> +1 to define new something object type and remove do_user and do_system. >>> But if we add OBJECT_SYSTEM to ObjectType data type, >>> system catalogs are OBJECT_SYSTEM as well as OBJECT_TABLE. >>> It's a bit redundant? >> Yes, kind of. That's a superset of a type of relations, aka a set of >> catalog tables. If you find something cleaner to propose, feel free. > > I thought we can add new struct like ReindexObjectType which has > REINDEX_OBJECT_TABLE, > REINDEX_OBJECT_SYSTEM and so on. It's similar to GRANT syntax. Check.
>>>> Another thing, ReindexDatabaseOrSchema should be renamed to ReindexObject. >>>> So, I think that we need to think a bit more here. We are not far from >>>> smth that could be committed, so marking as "Waiting on Author" for >>>> now. Thoughts? >>> >>> Is the table also kind of "object"? >> Sorry, I am not sure I follow you here. Indexes and tables have >> already their relkind set in ReindexStmt, and I think that we're fine >> to continue letting them go in their own reindex code path for now. > > It was not enough, sorry. > I mean that there is already ReindexTable() function. > if we renamed ReindexObject, I would feel uncomfortable feeling. > Because table is also kind of "object". Check. If you get that done, I'll have an extra look at it and then let's have a committer look at it. Regards, -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
