| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Let's drop two obsolete features which are bear-traps for novices |
| Date: | 2014-11-01 18:45:47 |
| Message-ID: | 54552A5B.5080304@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/01/2014 02:34 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Yeah, if we were trying to duplicate the behavior of indisvalid, there'd
>> need to be a way to detect the invalid index at plan time and not use it.
>> But I'm not sure that that's actually an improvement from the user's
>> standpoint: what they'd see is queries suddenly, and silently, performing
>> a lot worse than they expect. An explicit complaint about the necessary
>> REINDEX seems more user-friendly from where I sit.
> A REINDEX is imo unlikely to be acceptable. It takes long (why would you
> bother on a small table?) and locks the relation/indexes.
It's a bit of a pity we don't have REINDEX CONCURRENTLY.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-11-01 18:48:20 | Re: Let's drop two obsolete features which are bear-traps for novices |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-11-01 18:43:13 | Re: Let's drop two obsolete features which are bear-traps for novices |