| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Invisible Indexes |
| Date: | 2018-06-19 00:08:24 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwbzUEEMwp0w0H0UJCXMi=+ZnWg4z86g0A+XOyquevk0kg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 3:17 PM, Andrew Dunstan <
andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Yeah, but Peter makes the case that people want it for global
> experimentation. "We think we can safely drop this humungous index that
> would take us days to rebuild, but before we do let's make it invisible and
> run for a few days just to make sure." I guess we could do that with a GUC,
> but it seems ugly.
>
On that front what's the proposed behavior for cached plans using said
index?
IIUC with a GUC you'd have to force clients to establish new sessions if
you wanted all queries to be affected by the new setting whereas using
cache invalidation you can affect existing sessions with a catalog update.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-06-19 00:11:20 | Re: pg_config.h.win32 missing a set of flags from pg_config.h.in added in v11 development |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-06-18 23:33:33 | Re: [WIP] [B-Tree] Retail IndexTuple deletion |