From: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Making table reloading easier |
Date: | 2016-11-03 14:37:40 |
Message-ID: | CADkLM=dX6Vhi4a2MhHPWeUvTvA-a_cNWKasYs_4cFXzK5jm3kw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
>
> ALTER TABLE my_table
> DISABLE INDEX ALL;
>
+1
This very thing came up in a conversation with PeterG early last year. I
was in favor then and I was surprised that the only thing standing in the
way was a lack of ALTER TABLE syntax.
Creating temporary data structures to mimic existing metadata structures is
a pain.
>
> It'd be even better to also add a REINDEX flag to COPY, where it
> disables indexes and re-creates them after it finishes. But that could
> be done separately.
>
I'm iffy on the COPY change. If we add index rebuilding, why not disabling
as well? If the COPY fails, what state do we leave the indexes in?
I'm not sure I can tackle this in the current dev cycle,
I may have some spare cycles to devote to this, but it's unfamiliar
territory. I'm happy to do the grunt work if I had some higher level
guidance.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-11-03 14:39:38 | Re: Confusing docs about GetForeignUpperPaths in fdwhandler.sgml |
Previous Message | Kuntal Ghosh | 2016-11-03 14:28:42 | Re: WAL consistency check facility |