| From: | Bill Moran <wmoran(at)potentialtech(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | obartunov(at)gmail(dot)com, Jaime Casanova <jaime(dot)casanova(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Disabling an index temporarily |
| Date: | 2015-12-14 03:23:56 |
| Message-ID: | 20151213222356.d9c3faab8f7c64d1e45e4b42@potentialtech.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 22:15:31 -0500
Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> ALTER TABLE foo DISABLE [NONUNIQUE] INDEXES
> -- same, but joining to pg_class and possibly filtering on indisunique
I would think that NONUNIQUE should be the default, and you should have
to specify something special to also disable unique indexes. Arguably,
unique indexes are actually an implementation detail of unique
constraints. Disabling a performance-based index doesn't cause data
corruption, whereas disabling an index created as part of unique
constraint can allow invalid data into the table.
Just my $.02 ...
--
Bill Moran
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2015-12-14 03:24:41 | Re: Disabling an index temporarily |
| Previous Message | Corey Huinker | 2015-12-14 03:15:31 | Re: Disabling an index temporarily |