Re: ALTER tbl rewrite loses CLUSTER ON index

From: Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ALTER tbl rewrite loses CLUSTER ON index
Date: 2020-02-07 08:42:36
Message-ID: CA+HiwqGLdpjUzqkP9XcdKcBYgdonVPVNdys76jyhR5qG3GtHHA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 2:24 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2020-Feb-06, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > I wondered if it wouldn't be better if CLUSTER ON was stored in pg_class as the
> > Oid of a clustered index, rather than a boolean in pg_index.
>
> Maybe. Do you want to try a patch?

+1

Thanksm
Amit

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Antonin Houska 2020-02-07 08:44:34 Re: Assumptions about the number of parallel workers
Previous Message Kyotaro Horiguchi 2020-02-07 08:34:29 Re: Tid scan increments value of pg_stat_all_tables.seq_scan. (but not seq_tup_read)