| From: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bill Moran <wmoran(at)potentialtech(dot)com> |
| Cc: | obartunov(at)gmail(dot)com, Jaime Casanova <jaime(dot)casanova(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Disabling an index temporarily |
| Date: | 2015-12-14 17:08:11 |
| Message-ID: | CADkLM=dyM93Kfigrp=fcCFz8HuTVLzyOLUEPvRLeTasUT2dpZQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Bill Moran <wmoran(at)potentialtech(dot)com>
wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 22:15:31 -0500
> Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > ALTER TABLE foo DISABLE [NONUNIQUE] INDEXES
> > -- same, but joining to pg_class and possibly filtering on indisunique
>
> I would think that NONUNIQUE should be the default, and you should have
> to specify something special to also disable unique indexes. Arguably,
> unique indexes are actually an implementation detail of unique
> constraints. Disabling a performance-based index doesn't cause data
> corruption, whereas disabling an index created as part of unique
> constraint can allow invalid data into the table.
>
> Just my $.02 ...
>
> --
> Bill Moran
>
I'd be fine swapping NONUNIQUE for ALL and defaulting to non-unique, or
flatly enforcing a rule that it won't disable the index required by an
enabled constraint.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Konstantin Knizhnik | 2015-12-14 17:16:58 | Re: Logical replication and multimaster |
| Previous Message | Corey Huinker | 2015-12-14 17:04:43 | Re: Disabling an index temporarily |