On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 03:53:45PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> Hi Justin,
>
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 1:17 AM Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote:
> > Other options are preserved by ALTER (and CLUSTER ON is and most obviously
> > should be preserved by CLUSTER's rewrite), so I think (SET) CLUSTER should be
> > preserved by ALTER, too.
>
> Yes.
>
> create table foo (a int primary key);
> cluster foo;
> ERROR: there is no previously clustered index for table "foo"
> cluster foo using foo_pkey;
> alter table foo alter a type bigint;
> cluster foo;
> ERROR: there is no previously clustered index for table "foo"
>
> With your patch, this last error doesn't occur.
>
> Like you, I too suspect that losing indisclustered like this is
> unintentional, so should be fixed.
Thanks for checking.
It doesn't need to be said, but your patch is obviously superior.
I ran into this while looking into a suggestion from Alvaro that ALTER should
rewrite in order of a clustered index (if any) rather than in pre-existing heap
order (more on that another day). So while this looks like a bug, and I can't
think how a backpatch would break something, my suggestion is that backpatching
a fix is of low value, so it's only worth +0.
Thanks
Justin
