Andrew Dunstan <andrew.duns...@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.
regards, tom lane
