| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 19:33:59 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WznxfM4hgErzgHTwxqDj-++s9TRMthsXzP2SwmySi+cHEg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 12:22 PM, Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br> wrote:
> If we want to test the effect of disabling an index, we could set GUC
> only on the current session. DDL will make the index invisible
> immediately. Things can go worse after that. I prefer the former. It
> is more conservative but could confuse users if the effect is not
> immediate (few words could explain cached plans x invisible indexes).
If we're going to go that way, then we better not call them invisible
indexes. Invisible indexes are generally understood to be indexes that
are "invisible" to everyone -- not just the current session.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2018-06-19 19:54:13 | Re: Add necessary package list to ldap TAP's README |
| Previous Message | Euler Taveira | 2018-06-19 19:22:34 | Re: Invisible Indexes |