Hi Justin, On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 11:39 PM Justin Pryzby <pry...@telsasoft.com> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 02:24:47PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > On 2020-Feb-06, Justin Pryzby wrote: > > > > > I wondered if it wouldn't be better if CLUSTER ON was stored in pg_class > > > as the > > > Oid of a clustered index, rather than a boolean in pg_index. > > > > Maybe. Do you want to try a patch? > > I think the attached is 80% complete (I didn't touch pg_dump). > > One objection to this change would be that all relations (including indices) > end up with relclustered fields, and pg_index already has a number of bools, > so > it's not like this one bool is wasting a byte. > > I think relisclustered was a's clever way of avoiding that overhead > (c0ad5953). > So I would be -0.5 on moving it to pg_class..
Are you still for fixing ALTER TABLE losing relisclustered with the patch we were working on earlier [1], if not for moving relisclustered to pg_class anymore? I have read elsewhere [2] that forcing ALTER TABLE to rewrite in clustered order might not be a good option, but maybe that one is a more radical proposal than this. Thanks, Amit [1] https://postgr.es/m/CA%2BHiwqEt1HnXYckCdaO8%2BpOoFs7NNS5byoZ6Xg2B7epKbhS85w%40mail.gmail.com [2] https://postgr.es/m/10984.1581181029%40sss.pgh.pa.us
