Re: ALTER tbl rewrite loses CLUSTER ON index (consider moving indisclustered to pg_class)

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..

But I think 0001 and 0002 are worthy. Maybe the test in 0002 should live
somewhere else.