Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 09:52:22 -0500
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>,
	Sergei Kornilov <sk@zsrv.org>,
	Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>,
	Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se>,
	PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
	Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0
Message-ID: <20181214145222.GR3415@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: <20181214143236.GQ3415@tamriel.snowman.net>
 <20181214144529.wvmjwmy7wxgmgyb3@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="2/8XOisZQBB+ZZsK"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181214144529.wvmjwmy7wxgmgyb3@alvherre.pgsql>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk


--2/8XOisZQBB+ZZsK
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Greetings,

* Alvaro Herrera (alvherre@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> On 2018-Dec-14, Stephen Frost wrote:
>=20
> > That wasn't what was asked and I don't think I see a problem with having
> > concurrently be allowed in the parentheses.  For comparison, it's not
> > like "explain analyze select ..." or "explain buffers select" is
> > terribly good grammatical form.
>=20
> ... and we don't allow EXPLAIN BUFFERS at all, and if we had had a
> parenthesized option list in EXPLAIN when we invented EXPLAIN ANALYZE, I
> bet we would have *not* made the ANALYZE keyword appear unadorned in
> that command.

I'm not convinced of that- there is value in being able to write full
and useful commands without having to always use parentheses.

> > If you wanted to try to get to a better form for the spelled out
> > sentence, I would think:
> >=20
> > concurrently reindex table test
> >=20
> > would probably be the approach to use,
>=20
> I think this is terrible from a command-completion perspective, and from
> a documentation perspective (Certainly we wouldn't have a manpage about
> the "concurrently" command, for starters).

Right, I agreed that this had other downsides in the email you're
replying to here.  Glad we agree that it's not a good option.

> My vote goes to put the keyword inside of and exclusively in the
> parenthesized option list.

I disagree with the idea of exclusively having concurrently be in the
parentheses.  'explain buffers' is a much less frequently used option
(though that might, in part, be because it's a bit annoying to write out
explain (analyze, buffers) select...; I wonder if we could have a way to
say "if I'm running analyze, I always want buffers"...), but
concurrently reindexing a table (or index..) is going to almost
certainly be extremely common, perhaps even more common than *not*
reindexing concurrently.

Thanks!

Stephen

--2/8XOisZQBB+ZZsK
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=DAkx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--2/8XOisZQBB+ZZsK--