Re: CLUSTER on partitioned index

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, 李杰(慎追) <adger(dot)lj(at)alibaba-inc(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, 曾文旌(义从) <wenjing(dot)zwj(at)alibaba-inc(dot)com>, Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com>
Subject: Re: CLUSTER on partitioned index
Date: 2022-03-31 12:39:19
Message-ID: CA+TgmoaDXBOs8Kh78LqqbS_qWpcfoLO6FzCQvBmTZ7D3yN3W6A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 6:54 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> I realized after posting that we used to allow clustering toast tables,
> but after my changes we no longer do. (Justin's version had a
> RELKIND_HAS_STORAGE test here instead, which seemed a little too lax.) I
> don't know why we allowed it and I don't know of anyone who has ever
> used that feature and we don't have any test coverage for it, but I
> don't have any reason to explicitly disallow it either. So I propose to
> continue to allow it:

I think that's probably a good decision. It's certainly useful to have
a way to force a rewrite of a TOAST table, although a lot of people
who would benefit from that operation probably don't know that they
need it, or don't know that they need just that, and end up rewriting
both the main table and the TOAST table. Whether it's useful to be
able to run CLUSTER specifically rather than VACUUM FULL on the TOAST
table is less clear, but I don't think we're likely to save anything
by forbidding it. Maybe we should consider adding a test, though.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2022-03-31 12:53:07 Re: Commitfest Update
Previous Message Masahiko Sawada 2022-03-31 12:24:46 Re: Logical replication timeout problem