Thank you for your work on Postgresql. I'd like to pick your brain a bit more if you don't mind :)
What is you view on Postgresql not having a true clustered index like ms sql has? I mean that the table is maintained sorted by PK all the time (table is stored as btree). Do you think there's a possibility of MS sponsoring it? Our experience with Postgresql shows that as the biggest drawback for many popular workloads compared to other RDBMSes.
I think it would be neat to have - but personally I think there are higher priorities (asynchronous IO, faster executor, better buffer mapping, different connection model, built in automatic failover). And I don't think any of my colleagues was planning to work on the topic. A good implementation would be a lot of work, with an uncertain outcome at best.
There have been a good number of efficiency improvements in the last releases to postgres' btree implementation in the last few releases. Not the same as what you're looking for, obviously, but it might still help.
What is you view on Postgresql not having a true clustered index like ms sql has? I mean that the table is maintained sorted by PK all the time (table is stored as btree). Do you think there's a possibility of MS sponsoring it? Our experience with Postgresql shows that as the biggest drawback for many popular workloads compared to other RDBMSes.