Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2022 19:21:11 +0200
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.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: <202204021721.myr2alroeunz@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <202204021711.zf24w66t6o6w@alvherre.pgsql>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202204021721.myr2alroeunz%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

Small things here.

1. in VACUUM FULL we only process partitions that are owned by the
invoking user.  We don't have this test in the new code.  I'm not sure
why do we do that there; is it worth doing the same here?

2. We should silently skip a partition that's a foreign table, I
suppose.

3. We do mark the index on the partitions as indisclustered AFAICS (we
claim that the partitioned table's index is not marked, which is
accurate).  So users doing unadorned CLUSTER afterwards will get the
partitions clustered too, once they cluster the partitioned table.  If
they don't want this, they would have to ALTER TABLE to remove the
marking.  How likely is that this will be a problem?  Maybe documenting
this point is enough.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera        Breisgau, Deutschland  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
Voy a acabar con todos los humanos / con los humanos yo acabaré
voy a acabar con todos (bis) / con todos los humanos acabaré ¡acabaré! (Bender)