Re: CLUSTER on partitioned index - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Justin Pryzby
Subject Re: CLUSTER on partitioned index
Date
Msg-id 20220331141112.GO28503@telsasoft.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: CLUSTER on partitioned index  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 12:54:36PM +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I realized after posting that we used to allow clustering toast tables,
> but after my changes we no longer do.  (Justin's version had a
> RELKIND_HAS_STORAGE test here instead, which seemed a little too lax.) I
> don't know why we allowed it and I don't know of anyone who has ever
> used that feature and we don't have any test coverage for it, but I
> don't have any reason to explicitly disallow it either.  So I propose to
> continue to allow it:

Good catch.

My daily vacuum script would've discovered that they're no longer supported, as
it tests for (among other things) c.relkind IN ('r','t').  That clusters tables
that have an indisclustered set and vacuums various others.  (BTW, it's the
same script that discovered in 2019 that clustering on expressional indexes had
been broken by the heapam changes).

I think the response should be to add a test case, which could be 0001 or
00099.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Justin Pryzby
Date:
Subject: Re: CLUSTER on partitioned index
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Commitfest Update