From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
Cc: | "Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Loss of cluster status |
Date: | 2003-02-24 02:33:33 |
Message-ID: | 21190.1046054013@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
>> A CLUSTER command issued just after table creation, while it's still
>> empty, would be cheap ... but we don't put the index in place until
>> we've loaded the data, do we? Darn.
> Maybe we should issue it after the CREATE INDEX and ADD CONSTRAINT has
> occurred and just bite it.
The real problem I think is that we've confused the notion of setting a
policy for CLUSTER (ie, marking the preferred thing to cluster on) with
the notion of actually doing a CLUSTER. Perhaps we need an ALTER
command that says "this is what to cluster on" without actually doing
it.
> Other potential problem - ALTER TABLE / SET STORAGE ?
Yeah, pg_dump should be dumping that too, probably.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-02-24 03:29:22 | Re: Loss of cluster status |
Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-02-24 02:21:55 | Re: Loss of cluster status |