Re: Hot Standby, release candidate?

On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 14:14 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 13:48 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> >>> * Disallow clustering system relations. This will definitely NOT work
> >>> * for shared relations (we have no way to update pg_class rows in other
> >>> * databases), nor for nailed-in-cache relations (the relfilenode values
> >>> * for those are hardwired, see relcache.c). It might work for other
> >>> * system relations, but I ain't gonna risk it.
> >>
> >>> I would presume we would not want to relax the restriction on CLUSTER
> >>> working on these tables, even if new VACUUM FULL does.
> >>
> >> Why not? If we solve the problem of allowing these relations to change
> >> relfilenodes, then CLUSTER would work just fine on them. Whether it's
> >> particularly useful is not ours to decide I think.
>
> > I think you are probably right, but my wish to prove Schrodinger's Bug
> > does not exist is not high enough for me personally to open that box
> > this side of 8.6, especially when the previous code author saw it as a
> > risk worth documenting.
>
> You're talking to the "previous code author" ... or at least I'm pretty
> sure that comment is mine.

Yeh, I figured, but I'm just as scared now as you were back then.

This might allow CLUSTER to work, but it is definitely not something
that I will enabling, testing and committing to fix *when* it breaks
because my time is already allocated on other stuff.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com