Re: [PATCH] add CLUSTER table USING index (take 2)

Holger Schurig wrote:
> Index: src/doc/src/sgml/ref/cluster.sgml
> ===================================================================
> *** src.orig/doc/src/sgml/ref/cluster.sgml    2007-03-28 23:02:12.000000000 +0200
> --- src/doc/src/sgml/ref/cluster.sgml    2007-03-28 23:03:14.000000000 +0200
> ***************
> *** 20,27 ****
>
>    <refsynopsisdiv>
>   <synopsis>
> ! CLUSTER <replaceable class="PARAMETER">indexname</replaceable> ON <replaceable
class="PARAMETER">tablename</replaceable>
> ! CLUSTER <replaceable class="PARAMETER">tablename</replaceable>
>   CLUSTER
>   </synopsis>
>    </refsynopsisdiv>
> --- 20,26 ----
>
>    <refsynopsisdiv>
>   <synopsis>
> ! CLUSTER <replaceable class="PARAMETER">tablename</replaceable> [ USING <replaceable
class="PARAMETER">indexname</replaceable>] 
>   CLUSTER
>   </synopsis>
>    </refsynopsisdiv>

We still need to document the old syntax, especially if we don't change
the example as well.

> Index: src/src/backend/parser/gram.y
> ===================================================================
> *** src.orig/src/backend/parser/gram.y    2007-03-28 22:58:48.000000000 +0200
> --- src/src/backend/parser/gram.y    2007-03-28 22:59:15.000000000 +0200
> ***************
> *** 209,215 ****
>
>   %type <str>        relation_name copy_file_name
>                   database_name access_method_clause access_method attr_name
> !                 index_name name file_name
>
>   %type <list>    func_name handler_name qual_Op qual_all_Op subquery_Op
>                   opt_class opt_validator
> --- 209,215 ----
>
>   %type <str>        relation_name copy_file_name
>                   database_name access_method_clause access_method attr_name
> !                 index_name name file_name opt_cluster_using
>
>   %type <list>    func_name handler_name qual_Op qual_all_Op subquery_Op
>                   opt_class opt_validator

Is the placement of opt_cluster_using completely arbitrary? I'm not very
familiar with the parser, it really looks like those type-definitions
are in random order.

--
   Heikki Linnakangas
   EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com