Re: Proposal to Enable/Disable Index using ALTER INDEX

From: Shayon Mukherjee <shayonj(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Proposal to Enable/Disable Index using ALTER INDEX
Date: 2024-09-24 19:38:08
Message-ID: 1881935D-B976-4BAE-B11B-0C9190FEF0D6@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Thank you for the historical context and working, I understand what you were referring to before now.

Shayon

> On Sep 24, 2024, at 2:08 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> wrote:
>
> On 23.09.24 22:51, Shayon Mukherjee wrote:
>> I am happy to draft a patch for this as well. I think I have a working
>> idea so far of where the necessary checks might go. However if you don’t
>> mind, can you elaborate further on how the effect would be similar to
>> enable_indexscan?
>
> Planner settings like enable_indexscan used to just add a large number (disable_cost) to the estimated plan node costs. It's a bit more sophisticated in PG17. But in any case, I imagine "disabling an index" could use the same mechanism. Or maybe not, maybe the setting would just completely ignore the index.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Noah Misch 2024-09-24 19:43:40 Re: AIO writes vs hint bits vs checksums
Previous Message Max Johnson 2024-09-24 19:33:24 pg_ctl/miscinit: print "MyStartTime" as a long long instead of long to avoid 2038 problem.