On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 05:31:43PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > Now that we have the infrastructure to track indexes that might be corrupted > due to changes in collation libraries, I think it would be a good idea to > offer > an easy way for users to reindex all indexes that might be corrupted.
Yes. It would be a good thing. > The filter is also implemented so that you could cumulate multiple filters, so > it could be easy to add more filtering, for instance: > > REINDEX (COLLATION 'libc', COLLATION 'not_current') DATABASE mydb; > > to only rebuild indexes depending on outdated libc collations, or > > REINDEX (COLLATION 'libc', VERSION 'X.Y') DATABASE mydb; > > to only rebuild indexes depending on a specific version of libc. Deciding on the grammar to use depends on the use cases we would like to satisfy. From what I heard on this topic, the goal is to reduce the amount of time necessary to reindex a system so as REINDEX only works on indexes whose dependent collation versions are not known or works on indexes in need of a collation refresh (like a reindexdb --all --collation -j $jobs). What would be the benefit in having more complexity with library-dependent settings while we could take care of the use cases that matter the most with a simple grammar? Perhaps "not_current" is not the best match as a keyword, we could just use "collation" and handle that as a boolean. As long as we don't need new operators in the grammar rules.. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
