On 2015-02-03 10:20:03 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Sawada Masahiko <sawada.m...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 12:32 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> The way that FORCE was added to REINDEX was poorly thought out; let's not
> >> double down on that with another option added without any consideration
> >> for future expansion. I'd be happier if we adopted something similar to
> >> the modern syntax for VACUUM and EXPLAIN, ie, comma-separated options in
> >> parentheses.
>
> > I understood.
> > I'm imagining new REINDEX syntax are followings.
> > - REINDEX (INDEX, VERBOSE) hoge_idx;
> > - REINDEX (TABLE) hoge_table;
>
> > i.g., I will add following syntax format,
> > REINDEX ( { INDEX | TABLE | SCHEMA | SYSTEM | DATABASE } , [VERBOSE] )
> > name [FORCE];
>
> Well, the object type is not an optional part of the command. It's
> *necessary*. I was thinking more like
>
> REINDEX { INDEX | TABLE | etc } name [ ( option [, option ...] ) ]
>
> option := FORCE | VERBOSE
>
> We'd still keep the historical syntax where you can write FORCE outside
> parens, but it'd be deprecated.
Why would we allow force inside the parens, given it's a backward compat
only thing afaik? Don't get me wrong, I'm not at all against a
extensible syntax, I just don't see a point in further cargo culting
FORCE.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
