On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello <
fabriziome...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 7:55 PM, Sawada Masahiko <sawada.m...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >
> > On 5/7/15, Sawada Masahiko <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 5:42 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com
> > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >> On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Sawada Masahiko <
sawada.m...@gmail.com
> > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >>> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com
> > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >>>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Sawada Masahiko
> > >>>> <sawada.m...@gmail.com
> > > <javascript:;>> 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.
> > >
> > > I agree that flexible option syntax does not need to change grammar
> > > whenever we add new options.
> > > Attached patch is changed based on your suggestion.
> > > And the patch for reindexdb is also attached.
> > > Please feedbacks.
> > >
> > >>> Also I'm not sure that both implementation and documentation
regarding
> > >>> VERBOSE option should be optional.
> > >>
> > >> I don't know what this means.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Sorry for confusing you.
> > > Please ignore this.
> > >
> >
> > Sorry, I forgot attach files.
> >
>
> I applied the two patches to master and I got some errors when compile:
>
> tab-complete.c: In function ‘psql_completion’:
> tab-complete.c:3338:12: warning: left-hand operand of comma expression
has no effect [-Wunused-value]
> {"TABLE", "INDEX", "SYSTEM", "SCHEMA", "DATABASE", NULL};
> ^
> tab-complete.c:3338:21: warning: left-hand operand of comma expression
has no effect [-Wunused-value]
> {"TABLE", "INDEX", "SYSTEM", "SCHEMA", "DATABASE", NULL};
> ^
> tab-complete.c:3338:31: warning: left-hand operand of comma expression
has no effect [-Wunused-value]
> {"TABLE", "INDEX", "SYSTEM", "SCHEMA", "DATABASE", NULL};
> ^
> tab-complete.c:3338:41: warning: left-hand operand of comma expression
has no effect [-Wunused-value]
> {"TABLE", "INDEX", "SYSTEM", "SCHEMA", "DATABASE", NULL};
> ^
> tab-complete.c:3338:53: warning: left-hand operand of comma expression
has no effect [-Wunused-value]
> {"TABLE", "INDEX", "SYSTEM", "SCHEMA", "DATABASE", NULL};
> ^
> tab-complete.c:3338:5: warning: statement with no effect [-Wunused-value]
> {"TABLE", "INDEX", "SYSTEM", "SCHEMA", "DATABASE", NULL};
> ^
> tab-complete.c:3338:59: error: expected ‘;’ before ‘}’ token
> {"TABLE", "INDEX", "SYSTEM", "SCHEMA", "DATABASE", NULL};
> ^
> tab-complete.c:3340:22: error: ‘list_REINDEX’ undeclared (first use in
this function)
> COMPLETE_WITH_LIST(list_REINDEX);
> ^
> tab-complete.c:169:22: note: in definition of macro ‘COMPLETE_WITH_LIST’
> completion_charpp = list; \
> ^
> tab-complete.c:3340:22: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only
once for each function it appears in
> COMPLETE_WITH_LIST(list_REINDEX);
> ^
> tab-complete.c:169:22: note: in definition of macro ‘COMPLETE_WITH_LIST’
> completion_charpp = list; \
> ^
> make[3]: *** [tab-complete.o] Error 1
> make[3]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
> make[2]: *** [install-psql-recurse] Error 2
> make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
> make[1]: *** [install-bin-recurse] Error 2
> make: *** [install-src-recurse] Error 2
>
>
> Looking at the code I think you remove one line accidentally from
tab-complete.c:
>
> $ git diff src/bin/psql/tab-complete.c
> diff --git a/src/bin/psql/tab-complete.c b/src/bin/psql/tab-complete.c
> index 750e29d..55b0df5 100644
> --- a/src/bin/psql/tab-complete.c
> +++ b/src/bin/psql/tab-complete.c
> @@ -3335,7 +3335,6 @@ psql_completion(const char *text, int start, int
end)
> /* REINDEX */
> else if (pg_strcasecmp(prev_wd, "REINDEX") == 0)
> {
> - static const char *const list_REINDEX[] =
> {"TABLE", "INDEX", "SYSTEM", "SCHEMA", "DATABASE", NULL};
>
> COMPLETE_WITH_LIST(list_REINDEX);
>
>
> The attached fix it and now seems good to me.
>
Just one last note. IMHO we should add a regression to src/bin/scripts/
090_reindexdb.pl.
Regards,
--
Fabrízio de Royes Mello
Consultoria/Coaching PostgreSQL
>> Timbira: http://www.timbira.com.br
>> Blog: http://fabriziomello.github.io
>> Linkedin: http://br.linkedin.com/in/fabriziomello
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/fabriziomello
>> Github: http://github.com/fabriziomello
