Horton

Re: Allowing REINDEX to have an optional name

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Simon Riggs <simon.riggs@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>
Date: 2022-07-19T03:43:56Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 10:58:26AM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Sounds great, looks fine. Thanks for your review.

Ok, cool.  At the end, I have decided to split the tests and the main
patch into two different commits, as each is useful on its own.  Doing
so also helps in seeing the difference of behavior when issuing a
REINDEX DATABASE.  Another thing that was itching me with the test is
that it was not possible to make the difference between the toast
index of the catalog and of the user table, so I have added the parent
table name as an extra thing stored in the table storing the
relfilenodes.
--
Michael

Commits

  1. Tweak a bit the new TAP tests of REINDEX DATABASE/SYSTEM

  2. Rework logic and simplify syntax of REINDEX DATABASE/SYSTEM

  3. Add more tests for REINDEX DATABASE/SYSTEM with relfilenode changes