From: | Michael Brusser <michael(at)synchronicity(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Syntax question |
Date: | 2004-05-24 14:02:24 |
Message-ID: | DEEIJKLFNJGBEMBLBAHCGEAOELAA.michael@synchronicity.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
For what it's worth, I like the second form better.
Mike
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org]On Behalf Of Christopher
> Kings-Lynne
> Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2004 6:08 AM
> To: PostgreSQL-development
> Subject: [HACKERS] Syntax question
>
>
> Here are the two syntaxes we can use for turning off clustering:
>
> 1) ALTER TABLE / SET WITHOUT CLUSTER
>
> This will turn off clusting on any index on the table that has it
> enabled. It won't recurse so as to match the CLUSTER ON syntax.
> However, this form makes the non-standardy SET WITHOUT form more
> emphasised...
>
> 2) ALTER TABLE / DROP CLUSTER ON idx
>
> I like this form, however to make it work, we need to bump CLUSTER to
> being a reserved keyword. This form looks more like SQL standard, and
> is related to the CLUSTER ON form.
>
> Which one do we want?
>
> Chris
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
> joining column's datatypes do not match
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ned Lilly | 2004-05-24 14:08:49 | MySQL Lays Path for SAP Integration |
Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2004-05-24 13:55:04 | Re: Slony-I questions |