Re: ALTER tbl rewrite loses CLUSTER ON index - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: ALTER tbl rewrite loses CLUSTER ON index
Date
Msg-id 20200206172447.GA28041@alvherre.pgsql
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: ALTER tbl rewrite loses CLUSTER ON index  (Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>)
Responses Re: ALTER tbl rewrite loses CLUSTER ON index
Re: ALTER tbl rewrite loses CLUSTER ON index (consider movingindisclustered to pg_class)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2020-Feb-06, Justin Pryzby wrote:

> I wondered if it wouldn't be better if CLUSTER ON was stored in pg_class as the
> Oid of a clustered index, rather than a boolean in pg_index.

Maybe.  Do you want to try a patch?

> That likely would've avoided (or at least exposed) this issue.
> And avoids the possibility of having two indices marked as "clustered".
> These would be more trivial:
> mark_index_clustered
> /* We need to find the index that has indisclustered set. */

You need to be careful when dropping the index ...

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: table partitioning and access privileges
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Make ringbuffer threshold and ringbuffer sizes configurable?