Re: tablecmds: reject CLUSTER ON for partitioned tables earlier

From: Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: tablecmds: reject CLUSTER ON for partitioned tables earlier
Date: 2026-03-16 09:07:51
Message-ID: 602D405C-63BC-4383-AD43-28841CAF91C1@gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> On Mar 16, 2026, at 16:51, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2026 at 11:38:17AM +0800, Chao Li wrote:
>> On Jan 28, 2026, at 10:15, Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> * In 0001, replaced ereport with assert in
>>> mark_index_clustered(). See my previous email for the analysis.
>
> I have looked at this one, and I think that it is right. Even in the
> CLUSTER/VACUUM path, we have a relkind check before the sole caller of
> rebuild_relation() that discards partitioned tables, so we would never
> read mark_index_clustered() under this relkind. Applied.

Hi Micheal, thank you very much for pushing 0001.

>
>>> * In 0002, removed the redundant check of relispartition from
>>> * ATExecDropInherit().
>
> I have not looked at this one.
> --
> Michael

Basically, 0002 does the same thing as 0001 just on a different sub-command of ALTER TABLE.

Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Antonin Houska 2026-03-16 09:13:00 Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently]
Previous Message Ashutosh Sharma 2026-03-16 09:03:21 Re: synchronized_standby_slots behavior inconsistent with quorum-based synchronous replication