Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > At a minimum, we should indicate we dropped the cluster on the index. > > [shrug] If you're going to make me do that, I might as well reinstall > the bit on the new index. The code's problem is it doesn't know that > any of the indexes it dropped were clustered, and finding that out is > 90% of the issue. > > What I want to know is whether it is sensible to mark the revised index > as clustered, given that its semantics might be significantly different > from before.
OK, yea, just leave the bit. We can add documentation that they should run CLUSTER again if they radically modified the column as part of the ALTER> -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
