Re: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch

> > I meant to add only ASC/DESC; I would leave all other cases
> > (non-btrees, custom expression btrees) to use the old index-scan method.
>
> That hardly seems acceptable.


Well I brought up that in an earlier post:

http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A-About-%22Our-CLUSTER-implementation-is-pessimal%22-patch-p27179107.html

I hoped that since people mostly (>95%?) use plain btree indexes,
a patch that helped CLUSTER with using such indexes would be fine
(at least at first...). I guess that a patch that deals with all other types of
indexes would be way more complicated (not at the "planning" stage,
but in the scan+sort phase)?

> I hardly think that keeping yourself at arm's length from the planner
> by getting cozy with SPI internals is a net improvement in modularity.


So you think that code snippet that I sent earlier (the function that uses
create_index_path etc) could be put in planner.c (almost) as it is? It looked
clumsy to me (I liked the SPI code better)


Leonardo