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.
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. |