| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Invisible Indexes |
| Date: | 2018-06-18 22:20:39 |
| Message-ID: | 31056.1529360439@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:
> On 06/18/2018 06:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Anyway, if we do it with a GUC, the user can control the scope of
>> the effects.
> Yeah, but Peter makes the case that people want it for global
> experimentation. "We think we can safely drop this humungous index that
> would take us days to rebuild, but before we do let's make it invisible
> and run for a few days just to make sure." I guess we could do that with
> a GUC, but it seems ugly.
I find it hard to believe that it's uglier than what you suggested...
and it also does more, and is easier to implement.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Treat | 2018-06-18 22:21:43 | Re: Remove mention in docs that foreign keys on partitioned tables are not supported |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2018-06-18 22:17:10 | Re: Invisible Indexes |