On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 09:59:15AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.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.
I would love to see an API that allowed hypothetical indexes too.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +