| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Invisible Indexes |
| Date: | 2018-06-24 22:17:54 |
| Message-ID: | 20180624221754.GG17816@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 09:59:15AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > A major downside to a GUC is that you have to be aware of the current
> > setting, since we're not going to have one settoing for each invisible
> > index. Doing it at the SQL level you can treat each index separately. A
> > GUC will actually involve more code, I suspect.
>
> I'd envision it being a list of index names. We already have most
> if not all of the underpinnings for such a thing, I believe, lurking
> around the code for search_path, temp_tablespaces, etc.
I would love to see an API that allowed hypothetical indexes too.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2018-06-24 22:31:00 | Re: WIP: BRIN multi-range indexes |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2018-06-24 21:39:03 | Re: WIP: BRIN multi-range indexes |