On 2020-Sep-02, Michael Paquier wrote: > Yeah, I am all for removing "concurrent" from ReindexStmt, but I don't > think that the proposed 0002 is that, because it is based on the > assumption that we'd want more than just boolean-based options in > those statements, and this case is not justified yet except if it > becomes possible to enforce tablespaces. At this stage, I think that > it is more sensible to just update gram.y and add a > REINDEXOPT_CONCURRENTLY.
Yes, agreed. I had not seen the "params" business. > I also think that it would also make sense to pass down "options" > within ReindexIndexCallbackState() (for example imagine a SKIP_LOCKED > for REINDEX). Seems sensible, but only to be done when actually needed, right? -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
