| From: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2025-07-21 17:16:38 |
| Message-ID: | CAA5RZ0vybarroqJ7buqpZx_0poiPCoZS3CgbnfJ=cgM2ErXM7Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> it will still be extremely risky in
> heavy production workloads. In short, we're both walking a bull
> through the china shop, but it would seem mine is much more
> temperamental than yours.
Robert, Could you describe the GUC you would like to see?
Also, I'd like to ask. what would be the argument against offering both options,
ALTER and a GUC to override the catalog, as currently proposed in the patch?
This conversation has been mainly GUC is better than ALTER, or vice versa.
It is clear, at least to me, there are merits in both approaches, so
what would be
the argument against making both options available ( maybe with a GUC that
could be more useful than a simple boolean )?
--
Sami
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Shlok Kyal | 2025-07-21 17:27:06 | Update Examples in Logical Replication Docs |
| Previous Message | Sami Imseih | 2025-07-21 16:40:22 | Re: POC: Parallel processing of indexes in autovacuum |