Re: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch

Leonardo F <m_lists@yahoo.it> writes:
>> By the time you make this actually work in all cases, it's probably
>> going to be more of a mess than the other way; 

> 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.

>> not to mention that it
>> doesn't work *at all* without violating SPI internals.

> You lost me there...

You're poking into a data structure you shouldn't be poking into:

/* Plans are opaque structs for standard users of SPI */
typedef struct _SPI_plan *SPIPlanPtr;

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.
        regards, tom lane