| From: | Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, 李杰(慎追) <adger(dot)lj(at)alibaba-inc(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, 曾文旌(义从) <wenjing(dot)zwj(at)alibaba-inc(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: CLUSTER on partitioned index |
| Date: | 2021-04-03 16:14:33 |
| Message-ID: | CALNJ-vQ=Nc7wAP+LzhNNJCQSLoxUhGLQDA5JxErm8eLU+ppd_A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
For v10-0002-Implement-CLUSTER-of-partitioned-table.patch :
or that an partitioned index was previously set clustered.
'an partitioned index' -> a partitioned index
+ * Return a List of tables and associated index, where each index is a
associated index -> associated indices
For cluster():
- rel = table_open(tableOid, NoLock);
+ rel = table_open(tableOid, ShareUpdateExclusiveLock);
Considering the comment preceding cluster() (forced to acquire exclusive
locks on all the tables), maybe add a comment explaining why it is safe to
take ShareUpdateExclusiveLock.
+cluster_multiple_rels(List *rvs, int options)
I think the multiple in the method name is not needed since the relation is
in plural.
Cheers
On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 1:03 PM Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> wrote:
> @cfbot: rebased
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-04-03 17:16:27 | Re: SP-GiST confusion: indexed column's type vs. index column type |
| Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2021-04-03 15:50:16 | Re: [PATCH] Implement motd for PostgreSQL |