| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jaime Casanova <jaime(dot)casanova(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Invisible Indexes |
| Date: | 2018-07-05 01:31:00 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wz=V1LVEa8e3y+P1gQwj76rFR4M3jBK=NP54igPZm-h8mQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 6:26 PM, David Rowley
<david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Or would it be insanely weird to just not allow setting or unsetting
> this invisible flag if indcheckxmin is true? I can't imagine there
> will be many people adding an index and not wanting to use it while
> it's still being created. I think the use case here is mostly people
> wanting to test dropping indexes before they go and remove that 1TB
> index that will take days to build again if they're wrong.
I'm surprised that that use case wasn't the first one that everyone
thought of. I actually assumed that that's what Andrew had in mind
when reading his original message. I only realized later that it
wasn't.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Larry Rosenman | 2018-07-05 01:37:40 | Re: peripatus build failures.... |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2018-07-05 01:26:29 | Re: Invisible Indexes |