| From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Invisible Indexes |
| Date: | 2018-06-18 22:12:29 |
| Message-ID: | CAOBaU_bXz3fDBjUS5nBpFpP9y2hkoMcc3fus7D9uqPdO12XWcw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 12:05 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Well, what I was thinking about was that this functionality already
> exists (I think) in one or more "index advisor" plugins. It's possible
> that they've all bit-rotted for lack of support, which would not speak
> highly of the demand for the feature. But if we feel this is worth
> pulling into core, I think something along the lines of a GUC listing
> indexes to ignore for planning purposes might be a better design.
> It'd certainly dodge the issues you mentioned about lack of mutability
> of pg_index entries.
I know only one extension which does exactly that:
https://github.com/postgrespro/plantuner
It seems that it's still maintained.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-06-18 22:15:32 | Re: Invisible Indexes |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-06-18 22:12:09 | Re: Invisible Indexes |