On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 14:14 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 13:48 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > >>> * Disallow clustering system relations. This will definitely NOT work > >>> * for shared relations (we have no way to update pg_class rows in other > >>> * databases), nor for nailed-in-cache relations (the relfilenode values > >>> * for those are hardwired, see relcache.c). It might work for other > >>> * system relations, but I ain't gonna risk it. > >> > >>> I would presume we would not want to relax the restriction on CLUSTER > >>> working on these tables, even if new VACUUM FULL does. > >> > >> Why not? If we solve the problem of allowing these relations to change > >> relfilenodes, then CLUSTER would work just fine on them. Whether it's > >> particularly useful is not ours to decide I think. > > > I think you are probably right, but my wish to prove Schrodinger's Bug > > does not exist is not high enough for me personally to open that box > > this side of 8.6, especially when the previous code author saw it as a > > risk worth documenting. > > You're talking to the "previous code author" ... or at least I'm pretty > sure that comment is mine.
Yeh, I figured, but I'm just as scared now as you were back then. This might allow CLUSTER to work, but it is definitely not something that I will enabling, testing and committing to fix *when* it breaks because my time is already allocated on other stuff. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
