| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Invisible Indexes |
| Date: | 2018-06-18 22:12:09 |
| Message-ID: | 30558.1529359929@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 2:57 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I think the actually desirable way to handle this sort of thing is through
>> an "index advisor" sort of plugin, which can hide a given index from the
>> planner without any globally visible side-effects.
> The globally visible side-effects are the point, though. Some users
> desire cheap insurance against dropping what turns out to be the wrong
> index.
Perhaps there are use-cases where you want globally visible effects,
but the primary use-case Andrew cited (i.e. EXPLAIN experimentation)
would not want that.
Anyway, if we do it with a GUC, the user can control the scope of
the effects.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2018-06-18 22:12:29 | Re: Invisible Indexes |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-06-18 22:11:06 | Re: Invisible Indexes |