| From: | Julien Rouhaud <julien(dot)rouhaud(at)dalibo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, Tatsuo Ishii *EXTERN* <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> |
| Subject: | Re: Disabling an index temporarily |
| Date: | 2015-12-12 11:01:22 |
| Message-ID: | 566BFE82.5010401@dalibo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/12/2015 11:42, Albe Laurenz wrote:
> Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>>> Wouldn't something like:
>>>
>>> ALTER INDEX foo SET DISABLED;
>>>
>>> See more in line with our grammar?
>>
>> But this will affect other sessions, no?
>
> Not if it is used in a transaction that ends with a ROLLBACK,
> but then you might as well use DROP INDEX, except
> that DROP INDEX takes an access exclusive lock.
>
> Yours,
> Laurenz Albe
>
Oleg and Teodor announced some time ago an extension for this exact use
case, see
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/Pine.LNX.4.64.0910062354510.6801@sn.sai.msu.ru
This also has the advantage of not needing an exclusive lock on the index.
--
Julien Rouhaud
http://dalibo.com - http://dalibo.org
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2015-12-12 11:13:12 | Re: Disabling an index temporarily |
| Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2015-12-12 10:48:58 | Re: Logical replication and multimaster |