| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Invisible Indexes |
| Date: | 2018-06-24 13:59:15 |
| Message-ID: | 20405.1529848755@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> A major downside to a GUC is that you have to be aware of the current
> setting, since we're not going to have one settoing for each invisible
> index. Doing it at the SQL level you can treat each index separately. A
> GUC will actually involve more code, I suspect.
I'd envision it being a list of index names. We already have most
if not all of the underpinnings for such a thing, I believe, lurking
around the code for search_path, temp_tablespaces, etc.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2018-06-24 14:13:27 | Re: Desirability of client-side expressions in psql? |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2018-06-24 13:33:08 | Re: Concurrency bug in UPDATE of partition-key |