Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: SET WITHOUT CLUSTER patch

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>,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 23:15:43
Message-ID: 20040502231543.GA25084@dcc.uchile.cl (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 06:23:30PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > > 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.
> > 
> > Well, maybe - up to you.
> 
> Well, if we don't recurse on creation, does it make sense to recurse on
> destruction?  Seems it might surpise people.  Do we have that asymetry
> in any other area?

I'm not sure if it's assymetric.  You can't recursively set the cluster
bit, because child tables may not have an equally named index.  However
when you are unsetting the bit it doesn't matter how is the index named.

I'm not sure what side does this argument favor.  I'd say ALTER
TABLE/WITHOUT CLUSTER shouldn't recurse but I don't feel strongly about
it.

-- 
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
"Everybody understands Mickey Mouse. Few understand Hermann Hesse.
Hardly anybody understands Einstein. And nobody understands Emperor Norton."

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-05-02 23:50:46
Subject: Re: [CHECKER] 4 memory leaks in Postgresql 7.4.2
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2004-05-02 22:57:50
Subject: Re: Fixed directory locations in installs

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group