From: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
To: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: ALTER tbl rewrite loses CLUSTER ON index
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 08:44:26 -0600
Message-ID: <20200206144426.GH403@telsasoft.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+HiwqEEeehFhti-gV5We5uFeqp+TxTbAMvsUSHiGhj2_U57sQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20200202161718.GI13621@telsasoft.com>
<CA+HiwqEEeehFhti-gV5We5uFeqp+TxTbAMvsUSHiGhj2_U57sQ@mail.gmail.com>
I wondered if it wouldn't be better if CLUSTER ON was stored in pg_class as the
Oid of a clustered index, rather than a boolean in pg_index.
That likely would've avoided (or at least exposed) this issue.
And avoids the possibility of having two indices marked as "clustered".
These would be more trivial:
mark_index_clustered
/* We need to find the index that has indisclustered set. */
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: pryzby@telsasoft.com, amitlangote09@gmail.com
Subject: Re: ALTER tbl rewrite loses CLUSTER ON index
In-Reply-To: <20200206144426.GH403@telsasoft.com>
* 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