Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 11:25:23 -0300
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
Cc: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: ALTER tbl rewrite loses CLUSTER ON index
Message-ID: <20200316142523.GA14606@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20200316132731.GJ26184@telsasoft.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On 2020-Mar-16, Justin Pryzby wrote:

> Also, should we call it "is_index_clustered", since otherwise it sounds alot
> like "+get_index_clustered" (without "is"), which sounds like it takes a table
> and returns which index is clustered.  That might be just as useful for some of
> these callers.

Amit's proposed name seems to match lsyscache.c usual conventions better.

> Should we use your get_index_isclustered more widely ?

Yeah, in cluster(), mark_index_clustered().

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services