On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 09:59:15AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > 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.
I would love to see an API that allowed hypothetical indexes too. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@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 +