| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(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] Re: Proposal to Enable/Disable Index using ALTER INDEX |
| Date: | 2025-06-11 04:52:40 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvpS75LU9Si+1UhyyFx7tJ8OGi7Y7ROjmFBJvO_v0FCVFA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 at 04:40, Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net> wrote:
> You are going to have a guc either way, which
> means you are going to have to explain a bunch of these different
> caveats in BOTH solutions. It's just that in one of the solutions, you
> are further entangling the usage with DDL changes (and the additional
> caveats that come with that).
IMO, having this GUC to force the use of invisible indexes is quite
strange. In my view, it detracts from the guarantees that you're meant
to get from disabling indexes. What if some connection has
use_invisible_index set to true? The DBA might assume all is well
after having seen nobody complain and then drop the index. The user
might then complain.
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Florents Tselai | 2025-06-11 04:57:07 | Re: add function for creating/attaching hash table in DSM registry |
| Previous Message | Shinya Kato | 2025-06-11 04:49:39 | Re: Add log_autovacuum_{vacuum|analyze}_min_duration |