From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: ALTER tbl rewrite loses CLUSTER ON index (consider moving indisclustered to pg_class)
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 18:26:04 -0500
Message-ID: <17937.1582932364@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200207143935.GP403@telsasoft.com>
References: <20200206144426.GH403@telsasoft.com>
<20200206172447.GA28041@alvherre.pgsql>
<20200207143935.GP403@telsasoft.com>
Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> writes:
> I think the attached is 80% complete (I didn't touch pg_dump).
> One objection to this change would be that all relations (including indices)
> end up with relclustered fields, and pg_index already has a number of bools, so
> it's not like this one bool is wasting a byte.
> I think relisclustered was a's clever way of avoiding that overhead (c0ad5953).
> So I would be -0.5 on moving it to pg_class..
> But I think 0001 and 0002 are worthy. Maybe the test in 0002 should live
> somewhere else.
0001 has been superseded by events (faade5d4c), so the cfbot is choking
on that one's failure to apply, and not testing any further. Please
repost without 0001 so that we can get this testing again.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, pryzby@telsasoft.com, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, amitlangote09@gmail.com
Subject: Re: ALTER tbl rewrite loses CLUSTER ON index (consider moving indisclustered to pg_class)
In-Reply-To: <17937.1582932364@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox