Re: clustering without locking

Scott Ribe <scott_ribe@killerbytes.com> writes:
>> Huh? If I'm understanding you correctly you'll end up with rows in
>> order, but with a really big hole in the middle of the table. I'm not
>> sure if that qualifies as "clusters".

> That's why he said vacuum when done.

Huh?  A plain vacuum wouldn't fix that; a vacuum full would close up the
hole, but (a) it'd not preserve the row ordering, and (b) it'd take an
exclusive lock.

            regards, tom lane