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

From Justin Pryzby
Subject Re: ALTER tbl rewrite loses CLUSTER ON index
Date
Msg-id 20200229165258.GJ29456@telsasoft.com
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
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 08:42:02PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 06:26:04PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > 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 0001 has been superseded by events (faade5d4c), so the cfbot is choking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.
> 
> I've just noticed while working on (1) that this separately affects REINDEX
> CONCURRENTLY, which would be a new bug in v12.  Without CONCURRENTLY there's no
> issue.  I guess we need a separate patch for that case.

Rebased Amit's patch and included my own 0002 to fix the REINDEX CONCURRENTLY
issue.

-- 
Justin

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Krasiyan Andreev
Date:
Subject: [PATCH] respect/ignore nulls for lag,lead,first_value,last_value andnth_value and from first/last for nth_value
Next
From: David Fetter
Date:
Subject: Re: proposal \gcsv