| From: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net>, Shayon Mukherjee <shayonj(at)gmail(dot)com>, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet(at)singh(dot)im>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Proposal to Enable/Disable Index using ALTER INDEX |
| Date: | 2025-07-18 02:25:17 |
| Message-ID: | CAA5RZ0tP=7=0To309a5Qhb7HFeec69g2TN7+d0A1Evsvt+9+fQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> My concern with #1 is that when we one day do get query hints, we'll
> be left with a bunch of redundant ways to influence planner behaviour.
The GUC is more than just a hint. It can serve as a hint, but it also offers
operational benefits. For example, if I mark an index as invisible and that
only affects a subset of my workload, I don’t need to make the index visible
again. Instead, I can tune that specific workload to operate without it.
Once I’m confident the workload performs well, I can safely drop the index.
I’d argue we should not provide the ALTER option without the GUC, for
more granular control.
Regards,
Sami
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andy Fan | 2025-07-18 02:42:32 | Re: simple patch for discussion |
| Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2025-07-18 02:21:22 | Re: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication |