| From: | Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: tablecmds: reject CLUSTER ON for partitioned tables earlier |
| Date: | 2026-01-22 23:30:55 |
| Message-ID: | 07773235-2E94-478F-BEF6-38C73B0553B8@gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Jan 22, 2026, at 17:01, Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Jan 21, 2026, at 11:55, Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Hacker,
>>
>> I noticed this while working other patches related to “ALTER TABLE”.
>>
>> “ALTER TABLE … CLUSTER ON” and "SET WITHOUT CLUSTER" are not supported for partitioned tables, but currently ATPrepCmd() allows them through and they only fail later at execution time.
>>
>> This patch rejects these commands earlier by using the existing ATSimplePermissions() infrastructure in ATPrepCmd(), matching the handling of other unsupported ALTER TABLE actions on partitioned tables (such as SET LOGGED / SET UNLOGGED). This makes the behavior more consistent and simplifies the code path.
>>
>> As a result, the error reported for partitioned tables changes:
>>
>> Before the patch:
>> ```
>> evantest=# ALTER TABLE p_test CLUSTER ON idx_p_test_id;
>> ERROR: cannot mark index clustered in partitioned table
>> ```
>>
>> With the patch:
>> ```
>> evantest=# ALTER TABLE p_test CLUSTER ON idx_p_test_id;
>> ERROR: ALTER action CLUSTER ON cannot be performed on relation "p_test"
>> DETAIL: This operation is not supported for partitioned tables.
>> ```
>>
>> Best regards,
>> --
>> Chao Li (Evan)
>> HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
>> https://www.highgo.com/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <v1-0001-tablecmds-reject-CLUSTER-ON-for-partitioned-table.patch>
>
>
>
> Applying the same change to INHERIT/NO INHeRIT in v2-0002. Other than that, fixing 2 more things for INHERIT/NO INHERIT:
>
> * The header comment of ATPrepAddInherit() was a copy-paste mistake, it described something totally unrelated.
> * NO INHERIT didn’t call ATPrepAddInherit() to check early, so it had to go deeper and run unnecessary checks.
>
> Basically, 0001 and 0002 do the same thing on two sub-commands. If accepted, they can be squashed.
>
> Best regards,
> --
> Chao Li (Evan)
> HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
> https://www.highgo.com/
>
> <v2-0001-tablecmds-reject-CLUSTER-ON-for-partitioned-table.patch><v2-0002-tablecmds-reject-INHERIT-NO-INHERIT-for-partition.patch>
PFA v3:
0001 is the same as v2. In 0002:
* Restored the header comment of ATPrepAddInherit, because I realized the should belong to ATExecAddInherit.
* Renamed ATPrepAddInherit to ATPrepChangeInherit.
Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v3-0001-tablecmds-reject-CLUSTER-ON-for-partitioned-table.patch | application/octet-stream | 2.6 KB |
| v3-0002-tablecmds-reject-INHERIT-NO-INHERIT-for-partition.patch | application/octet-stream | 4.5 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2026-01-22 23:43:54 | Re: Assert when executing query on partitioned table |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2026-01-22 23:23:11 | Re: Remove PG_MMAP_FLAGS |