Re: Invisible Indexes

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: 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 13:59:15
Message-ID: 20405.1529848755@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fabien COELHO 2018-06-24 14:13:27 Re: Desirability of client-side expressions in psql?
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2018-06-24 13:33:08 Re: Concurrency bug in UPDATE of partition-key