On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 7:27 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Corey Huinker <corey.huinker@gmail.com> writes:
>> So, I'd propose we following syntax:
>> ALTER INDEX foo SET DISABLED
>> -- does the SET indisvalid = false shown earlier.
>
> This is exactly *not* what Tatsuo-san was after, though; he was asking
> for a session-local disable, which I would think would be by far the more
> common use-case. It's hard for me to see much of a reason to disable an
> index globally while still paying all the cost to maintain it.
Not to hijack the thread even further in the wrong direction, but I
think what Corey really wants here is to stop maintaining the index at
retail while preserving the existing definition and existing index
data, and then to do a wholesale fix-up, like what is done in the 2nd
half of a create index concurrently, upon re-enabling it.
Cheers,
Jeff