Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > >>Actually, it occurs to me that the SET WITHOUT CLUSTER form CAN recurse. > >> Should I make it do that, even though the CLUSTER ON form cannot? > > > > I just thought about this. CLUSTER is more of a storage-level > > specification, rather than a logical one. Seems it is OK that WITOUTH > > CLUSTER not recurse into inherited tables, especially since the CLUSTER > > command does not. > > The patch I submitted earlier already does do recursion - I don't see > why it shouldn't really. It's better than failing saying that legal > grammar is in fact illegal :)
Uh, if the CLUSTER doesn't recurse, the WITHOUT shouldn't either, I think, and throwing an error seems fine to me, even if it isn't the same wording as a syntax error. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match