Horton

Re: CLUSTER on partitioned index

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, 李杰(慎追) <adger.lj@alibaba-inc.com>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, 曾文旌(义从) <wenjing.zwj@alibaba-inc.com>, Zhihong Yu <zyu@yugabyte.com>
Date: 2021-07-21T00:27:02Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
I have to wonder if there really *is* a use case for CLUSTER in the
first place on regular tables, let alone on partitioned tables, which
are likely to be large and thus take a lot of time.  What justifies
spending so much time on this implementation?  My impression is that
CLUSTER is pretty much a fringe command nowadays, because of the access
exclusive lock required.

Does anybody actually use it?

-- 
Álvaro Herrera           39°49'30"S 73°17'W  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Ninguna manada de bestias tiene una voz tan horrible como la humana" (Orual)

Commits

  1. Add some isolation tests for CLUSTER

  2. Have CLUSTER ignore partitions not owned by caller

  3. Remove "recheck" argument from check_index_is_clusterable()

  4. Allow CLUSTER on partitioned tables

  5. doc: Add backlinks to progress reporting documentation