Re: SET WITHOUT CLUSTER patch

On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 06:23:30PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > > Uh, if the CLUSTER doesn't recurse, the WITHOUT shouldn't either, I
> > > think, and throwing an error seems fine to me, even if it isn't the same
> > > wording as a syntax error.
> >
> > Well, maybe - up to you.
>
> Well, if we don't recurse on creation, does it make sense to recurse on
> destruction? Seems it might surpise people. Do we have that asymetry
> in any other area?

I'm not sure if it's assymetric. You can't recursively set the cluster
bit, because child tables may not have an equally named index. However
when you are unsetting the bit it doesn't matter how is the index named.

I'm not sure what side does this argument favor. I'd say ALTER
TABLE/WITHOUT CLUSTER shouldn't recurse but I don't feel strongly about
it.

--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
"Everybody understands Mickey Mouse. Few understand Hermann Hesse.
Hardly anybody understands Einstein. And nobody understands Emperor Norton."