Re: tablecmds: reject CLUSTER ON for partitioned tables earlier

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>
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 08:51:34
Message-ID: abfElj6aqmazkgb1@paquier.xyz
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

>> * In 0002, removed the redundant check of relispartition from
>> * ATExecDropInherit().

I have not looked at this one.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ashutosh Sharma 2026-03-16 09:03:21 Re: synchronized_standby_slots behavior inconsistent with quorum-based synchronous replication
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2026-03-16 08:49:47 Re: Skipping schema changes in publication