| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| 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: | 2024-09-10 12:02:34 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvrArTnFa21xyKXeTK-+HFCqDBtYLrWc7BE+ArU3FSuuPA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 10 Sept 2024 at 22:46, Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> How about the indislive flag instead? I haven't looked at the code, but
> from the documentation ("If false, the index is in process of being
> dropped, and
> should be ignored for all purposes") it sounds like we made be able to
> piggy-back on that instead?
Doing that could cause an UPDATE which would ordinarily not be
eligible for a HOT-update to become a HOT-update. That would cause
issues if the index is enabled again as the index wouldn't have been
updated during the UPDATE.
I don't see the big deal with adding a new flag. There's even a free
padding byte to put this flag in after indisreplident, so we don't
have to worry about using more memory.
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | torikoshia | 2024-09-10 12:03:40 | Re: ANALYZE ONLY |
| Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2024-09-10 11:39:24 | Re: [PATCH] Fix small overread during SASLprep |