Re: ALTER tbl rewrite loses CLUSTER ON index

From: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: ALTER tbl rewrite loses CLUSTER ON index
Date: 2020-03-17 16:20:44
Message-ID: 20200317162044.GX26184@telsasoft.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 02:33:32PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Yeah, in cluster(), mark_index_clustered().
>
> Patch 0002 from Justin does that, I would keep this refactoring as
> HEAD-only material though, and I don't spot any other code paths in
> need of patching.
>
> The commit message of patch 0001 is not what you wanted I guess.

That's what git-am does, and I didn't find any option to make it less
unreadable. I guess I should just delete the email body it inserts.

| The commit message is formed by the title taken from the "Subject: ", a
| blank line and the body of the message up to where the patch begins. Excess
| whitespace at the end of each line is automatically stripped.

--
Justin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2020-03-17 16:24:09 Re: Collation versioning
Previous Message Dean Rasheed 2020-03-17 16:14:26 Re: PATCH: add support for IN and @> in functional-dependency statistics use