| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Invisible Indexes |
| Date: | 2018-06-19 20:17:40 |
| Message-ID: | 20180619201740.h5e5nkiuoqan7o5e@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2018-06-19 14:05:24 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Yeah, I agree that a GUC seems more powerful and easier to roll out.
> A downside is that there could be cached plans still using that old
> index. If we did DDL on the index we could be sure they all got
> invalidated, but otherwise how do we know?
Hm - it doesn't seem too hard to force an invalidation after SIGHUP and
certain config changes. Seems like that would be a good idea for other
existing GUCs anyway?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-06-19 20:18:46 | Re: found xmin from before relfrozenxid on pg_catalog.pg_authid |
| Previous Message | Matheus de Oliveira | 2018-06-19 20:05:48 | Re: found xmin from before relfrozenxid on pg_catalog.pg_authid |