| From: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Loss of cluster status |
| Date: | 2003-02-24 03:29:22 |
| Message-ID: | 0cb201c2dbb4$ec9a5a10$6500a8c0@fhp.internal |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > Maybe we should issue it after the CREATE INDEX and ADD CONSTRAINT has
> > occurred and just bite it.
>
> The real problem I think is that we've confused the notion of setting a
> policy for CLUSTER (ie, marking the preferred thing to cluster on) with
> the notion of actually doing a CLUSTER. Perhaps we need an ALTER
> command that says "this is what to cluster on" without actually doing
> it.
Hmmm...I don't know if I can be bothered working on that - anyone else want
to do it?
> > Other potential problem - ALTER TABLE / SET STORAGE ?
>
> Yeah, pg_dump should be dumping that too, probably.
I'll do a patch for that then.
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-02-24 04:31:22 | Re: ILIKE |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-02-24 02:33:33 | Re: Loss of cluster status |