Re: CLUSTER on partitioned index
| От | Zhihong Yu |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: CLUSTER on partitioned index |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CALNJ-vQ=Nc7wAP+LzhNNJCQSLoxUhGLQDA5JxErm8eLU+ppd_A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | CLUSTER on partitioned index (Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
For v10-0002-Implement-CLUSTER-of-partitioned-table.patch :
or that an partitioned index was previously set clustered.
'an partitioned index' -> a partitioned index
+ * Return a List of tables and associated index, where each index is a
associated index -> associated indices
For cluster():
- rel = table_open(tableOid, NoLock);
+ rel = table_open(tableOid, ShareUpdateExclusiveLock);
+ rel = table_open(tableOid, ShareUpdateExclusiveLock);
Considering the comment preceding cluster() (forced to acquire exclusive locks on all the tables), maybe add a comment explaining why it is safe to take ShareUpdateExclusiveLock.
+cluster_multiple_rels(List *rvs, int options)
I think the multiple in the method name is not needed since the relation is in plural.
Cheers
On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 1:03 PM Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote:
@cfbot: rebased
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: