Re: Invisible Indexes

On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 09:59:15AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan  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          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 +