Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 06:23:30PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > > > Uh, if the CLUSTER doesn't recurse, the WITHOUT shouldn't either, I
> > > > think, and throwing an error seems fine to me, even if it isn't the same
> > > > wording as a syntax error.
> > >
> > > Well, maybe - up to you.
> >
> > Well, if we don't recurse on creation, does it make sense to recurse on
> > destruction? Seems it might surpise people. Do we have that asymetry
> > in any other area?
>
> I'm not sure if it's assymetric. You can't recursively set the cluster
> bit, because child tables may not have an equally named index. However
> when you are unsetting the bit it doesn't matter how is the index named.
Right, we can recurse on WITHOUT and not using WITH, but would people
expect WITHOUT to recurse?
If we allowed indexes to span tables, it would be nice for both to
recurse, but because we don't, I think neither should.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
