| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Shayon Mukherjee <shayonj(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal to Enable/Disable Index using ALTER INDEX |
| Date: | 2024-09-24 18:11:23 |
| Message-ID: | 5d54ff80-ddb4-4ca8-ad06-06ff09627104@eisentraut.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 24.09.24 02:30, David Rowley wrote:
> I understand the last discussion went down that route too. For me, it
> seems strange that adding some global variable is seen as cleaner than
> storing the property in the same location as all the other index
> properties.
It's arguably not actually a property of the index, it's a property of
the user's session. Like, kind of, the search path is a session
property, not a property of a schema.
> How would you ensure no cached plans are still using the index after
> changing the GUC?
Something for the patch author to figure out. ;-)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-09-24 18:21:04 | Re: Proposal to Enable/Disable Index using ALTER INDEX |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2024-09-24 18:08:27 | Re: CSN snapshots in hot standby |