On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Sawada Masahiko <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Sawada Masahiko <sawada.m...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> VACUUM has both syntax: with parentheses and without parentheses. >>> I think we should have both syntax for REINDEX like VACUUM does >>> because it would be pain to put parentheses whenever we want to do >>> REINDEX. >>> Are the parentheses optional in REINDEX command? >> >> No. The unparenthesized VACUUM syntax was added back before we >> realized that that kind of syntax is a terrible idea. It requires >> every option to be a keyword, and those keywords have to be in a fixed >> order. I believe the intention is to keep the old VACUUM syntax >> around for backward-compatibility, but not to extend it. Same for >> EXPLAIN and COPY. > > REINDEX will have only one option VERBOSE for now. > Even we're in a situation like that it's not clear to be added newly > additional option to REINDEX now, we should need to put parenthesis?
In my opinion, yes. The whole point of a flexible options syntax is that we can add new options without changing the grammar. That involves some compromise on the syntax, which doesn't bother me a bit. Our previous experiments with this for EXPLAIN and COPY and VACUUM have worked out quite well, and I see no reason for pessimism here. > Also I'm not sure that both implementation and documentation regarding > VERBOSE option should be optional. I don't know what this means. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
