Re: ALTER tbl rewrite loses CLUSTER ON index

On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 08:42:02PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 06:26:04PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> writes:
> > > I think the attached is 80% complete (I didn't touch pg_dump).
> > > One objection to this change would be that all relations (including indices)
> > > end up with relclustered fields, and pg_index already has a number of bools, so
> > > it's not like this one bool is wasting a byte.
> > > I think relisclustered was a's clever way of avoiding that overhead (c0ad5953).
> > > So I would be -0.5 on moving it to pg_class..
> > > But I think 0001 and 0002 are worthy. Maybe the test in 0002 should live
> > > somewhere else.
> >
> > 0001 has been superseded by events (faade5d4c), so the cfbot is choking
> > on that one's failure to apply, and not testing any further. Please
> > repost without 0001 so that we can get this testing again.
>
> I've just noticed while working on (1) that this separately affects REINDEX
> CONCURRENTLY, which would be a new bug in v12. Without CONCURRENTLY there's no
> issue. I guess we need a separate patch for that case.

Rebased Amit's patch and included my own 0002 to fix the REINDEX CONCURRENTLY
issue.

--
Justin