Horton

Re: CLUSTER on partitioned index

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>, 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: 2021-07-21T00:34:12Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 08:27:02PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> 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?

Yeah, I am not getting really excited about doing anything here
either.  I thought for some time about the interactions with
indisclustered and partitioned tables, but anything I could come up
with felt clunky.
--
Michael

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