Re: ALTER tbl rewrite loses CLUSTER ON index (consider moving indisclustered to pg_class) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: ALTER tbl rewrite loses CLUSTER ON index (consider moving indisclustered to pg_class)
Date
Msg-id 17937.1582932364@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: ALTER tbl rewrite loses CLUSTER ON index (consider movingindisclustered to pg_class)  (Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>)
Responses Re: ALTER tbl rewrite loses CLUSTER ON index
List pgsql-hackers
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 indices)
> end up with relclustered fields, and pg_index already has a number of bools, so
> it's not like this one bool is wasting a byte.
> I think relisclustered was a's clever way of avoiding that overhead (c0ad5953).
> 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 live
> 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0001 has been superseded by events (faade5d4c), so the cfbot is choking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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Portal->commandTag as an enum
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Binary support for pgoutput plugin