From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
        Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: ALTER tbl rewrite loses CLUSTER ON index (consider moving
 indisclustered to pg_class)
In-reply-to: <20200207143935.GP403@telsasoft.com>
References: <20200206144426.GH403@telsasoft.com>
 <20200206172447.GA28041@alvherre.pgsql> <20200207143935.GP403@telsasoft.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
	message dated "Fri, 07 Feb 2020 08:39:35 -0600"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <17936.1582932364.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 18:26:04 -0500
Message-ID: <17937.1582932364@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

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 indi=
ces)
> end up with relclustered fields, and pg_index already has a number of bo=
ols, so
> it's not like this one bool is wasting a byte.
> I think relisclustered was a's clever way of avoiding that overhead (c0a=
d5953).
> 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 liv=
e
> 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0001 has been superseded by events (faade5d4c), so the cfbot is choking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