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

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: CLUSTER on partitioned index
Date
Msg-id 202204021721.myr2alroeunz@alvherre.pgsql
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: CLUSTER on partitioned index  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
Small things here.

1. in VACUUM FULL we only process partitions that are owned by the
invoking user.  We don't have this test in the new code.  I'm not sure
why do we do that there; is it worth doing the same here?

2. We should silently skip a partition that's a foreign table, I
suppose.

3. We do mark the index on the partitions as indisclustered AFAICS (we
claim that the partitioned table's index is not marked, which is
accurate).  So users doing unadorned CLUSTER afterwards will get the
partitions clustered too, once they cluster the partitioned table.  If
they don't want this, they would have to ALTER TABLE to remove the
marking.  How likely is that this will be a problem?  Maybe documenting
this point is enough.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera        Breisgau, Deutschland  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
Voy a acabar con todos los humanos / con los humanos yo acabaré
voy a acabar con todos (bis) / con todos los humanos acabaré ¡acabaré! (Bender)



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Fix overflow in DecodeInterval
Next
From: Joseph Koshakow
Date:
Subject: Re: Fix overflow in DecodeInterval