On 2025-Jul-24, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 11:54:10AM +0200, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Yeah, thanks for taking a look. That duplication is just me being dumb.
> > Here's a version without that. The only thing that needed to change was
> > changing "CLUSTER opt_verbose" to "C
On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 11:54:10AM +0200, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> Yeah, thanks for taking a look. That duplication is just me being dumb.
> Here's a version without that. The only thing that needed to change was
> changing "CLUSTER opt_verbose" to "CLUSTER VERBOSE" so that the
> unadorned CLUSTER
Hello,
On 2025-Jul-23, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2025-07-23 19:59:52 +0200, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> > ... so using the same set of productions, I can rewrite the current
> > CLUSTER rule in this way and it won't be a problem for the REPACK
> > changes.
>
> But it comes at the price of henceforth
Hi,
On 2025-07-23 19:59:52 +0200, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> ... so using the same set of productions, I can rewrite the current
> CLUSTER rule in this way and it won't be a problem for the REPACK
> changes.
But it comes at the price of henceforth duplicating all ClusterStmt, once for
VERBOSE and on
... so using the same set of productions, I can rewrite the current
CLUSTER rule in this way and it won't be a problem for the REPACK
changes.
Thanks for looking!
--
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
>From 91edb076325ca366762832fcf3a4eab7de21002d Mon
On 2025-Jul-23, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> So we can still do this, and I still think it's a win, but unfortunately
> it won't help for the REPACK patch.
Ah no, I can still use it:
RepackStmt:
REPACK opt_utility_option_list qualified_name USING INDEX name
| REPACK opt_utilit
On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 06:50:59PM +0200, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> So we can still do this, and I still think it's a win,
+1
> but unfortunately it won't help for the REPACK patch.
Darn.
--
nathan
On 2025-Jul-23, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 05:38:34PM +0200, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> > I noticed some duplicative coding while hacking on REPACK[1]. We can
> > save a few lines now with a trivial change to the rules for CHECKPOINT
> > and REINDEX, and allow to save a few extr
On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 05:38:34PM +0200, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> I noticed some duplicative coding while hacking on REPACK[1]. We can
> save a few lines now with a trivial change to the rules for CHECKPOINT
> and REINDEX, and allow to save a few extra lines in that patch.
>
> Any objections to t
Hello
I noticed some duplicative coding while hacking on REPACK[1]. We can
save a few lines now with a trivial change to the rules for CHECKPOINT
and REINDEX, and allow to save a few extra lines in that patch.
Any objections to this?
[1] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/patch/5117/
--
Álvaro
10 matches
Mail list logo
