Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2022 12:47:32 -0600
From: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
	=?utf-8?B?5p2O5p2wKOaFjui/vSk=?= <adger.lj@alibaba-inc.com>,
	pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org,
	=?utf-8?B?5pu+5paH5peMKOS5ieS7jik=?= <wenjing.zwj@alibaba-inc.com>,
	Zhihong Yu <zyu@yugabyte.com>
Subject: Re: CLUSTER on partitioned index
Message-ID: <20220223184732.GN9008@telsasoft.com>
References: <20210402200314.GA6592@telsasoft.com>
 <202107210027.vfv6wn3hvfer@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <202107210027.vfv6wn3hvfer@alvherre.pgsql>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20220223184732.GN9008%40telsasoft.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 08:27:02PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I have to wonder if there really *is* a use case for CLUSTER in the
> first place on regular tables, let alone on partitioned tables, which
> are likely to be large and thus take a lot of time.  What justifies
> spending so much time on this implementation?  My impression is that
> CLUSTER is pretty much a fringe command nowadays, because of the access
> exclusive lock required.
> 
> Does anybody actually use it?

I hope that Alvaro will comment on the simplified patches.  If multiple people
think the patch isn't worth it, feel free to close it.  But I don't see how
complexity could be the reason.

-- 
Justin