Re: ALTER tbl rewrite loses CLUSTER ON index
От | Alvaro Herrera |
---|---|
Тема | Re: ALTER tbl rewrite loses CLUSTER ON index |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20200206172447.GA28041@alvherre.pgsql обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: ALTER tbl rewrite loses CLUSTER ON index (Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: ALTER tbl rewrite loses CLUSTER ON index
Re: ALTER tbl rewrite loses CLUSTER ON index (consider movingindisclustered to pg_class) |
Список | 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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: