| From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 03:46:39 |
| Message-ID: | CAMkU=1xJHEvJ_iZUGW8xGhL_ZngmCUH9CN1TXFgWzG11OeEQ4g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 7:27 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> So, I'd propose we following syntax:
>> ALTER INDEX foo SET DISABLED
>> -- does the SET indisvalid = false shown earlier.
>
> This is exactly *not* what Tatsuo-san was after, though; he was asking
> for a session-local disable, which I would think would be by far the more
> common use-case. It's hard for me to see much of a reason to disable an
> index globally while still paying all the cost to maintain it.
Not to hijack the thread even further in the wrong direction, but I
think what Corey really wants here is to stop maintaining the index at
retail while preserving the existing definition and existing index
data, and then to do a wholesale fix-up, like what is done in the 2nd
half of a create index concurrently, upon re-enabling it.
Cheers,
Jeff
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-12-14 04:03:22 | Re: Disabling an index temporarily |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-12-14 03:37:41 | Re: Using quicksort for every external sort run |