| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SET WITHOUT CLUSTER patch |
| Date: | 2004-05-02 13:58:22 |
| Message-ID: | 200405021358.i42DwMD17477@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> >>Actually, it occurs to me that the SET WITHOUT CLUSTER form CAN recurse.
> >> Should I make it do that, even though the CLUSTER ON form cannot?
> >
> > I just thought about this. CLUSTER is more of a storage-level
> > specification, rather than a logical one. Seems it is OK that WITOUTH
> > CLUSTER not recurse into inherited tables, especially since the CLUSTER
> > command does not.
>
> The patch I submitted earlier already does do recursion - I don't see
> why it shouldn't really. It's better than failing saying that legal
> grammar is in fact illegal :)
Uh, if the CLUSTER doesn't recurse, the WITHOUT shouldn't either, I
think, and throwing an error seems fine to me, even if it isn't the same
wording as a syntax error.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2004-05-02 14:20:28 | Re: SET WITHOUT CLUSTER patch |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2004-05-02 13:52:43 | Re: SET WITHOUT CLUSTER patch |