On 19.09.2019 16:21, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 12:43 AM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote:
It seems to me that it would be good to keep the patch as simple as
possible for its first version, and split it into two if you would
like to add this new option instead of bundling both together. This
makes the review of one and the other more simple. Anyway, regarding
the grammar, is SET TABLESPACE really our best choice here? What
about:
- TABLESPACE = foo, in parenthesis only?
- Only using TABLESPACE, without SET at the end of the query?
SET is used in ALTER TABLE per the set of subqueries available there,
but that's not the case of REINDEX.
So, earlier in this thread, I suggested making this part of ALTER
TABLE, and several people seemed to like that idea. Did we have a
reason for dropping that approach?
If we add this option to REINDEX, then for 'ALTER TABLE tb_name action1,
REINDEX SET TABLESPACE tbsp_name, action3' action2 will be just a direct
alias to 'REINDEX TABLE tb_name SET TABLESPACE tbsp_name'. So it seems
practical to do this for REINDEX first.
The only one concern I have against adding REINDEX to ALTER TABLE in
this context is that it will allow user to write such a chimera:
ALTER TABLE tb_name REINDEX SET TABLESPACE tbsp_name, SET TABLESPACE
tbsp_name;
when they want to move both table and all the indexes. Because simple
ALTER TABLE tb_name REINDEX, SET TABLESPACE tbsp_name;
looks ambiguous. Should it change tablespace of table, indexes or both?
--
Alexey Kondratov
Postgres Professional https://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company
