| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Shayon Mukherjee <shayonj(at)gmail(dot)com>, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet(at)singh(dot)im>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Proposal to Enable/Disable Index using ALTER INDEX |
| Date: | 2025-07-24 01:43:12 |
| Message-ID: | aIGPsNJszufhHq4X@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 01:15:16PM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote:
> The GUC serves multiple purposes. For example,I can create an index as invisible
> and use it in a controlled way, which is helpful for experimenting
> with a new index.
An in-core GUC to control the list of indexes that should be allowed
or disallowed is I think asking for trouble, adding schema-related
knowledge directly into the GUC machinery. This does not scale well,
even if you force all the entries to be specified down to the database
and the schema. And it makes harder to control what a "good" behavior
should be at query-level.
My 2c.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2025-07-24 01:47:07 | Re: Fixing MSVC's inability to detect elog(ERROR) does not return |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2025-07-24 01:38:29 | Re: [PATCH] Proposal to Enable/Disable Index using ALTER INDEX |