+1 for the new flag as well, since it'd be nice to be able to
enable/disable indexes without having to worry about the missed updates /
having to rebuild it.
Shayon
On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 8:02 AM David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Sept 2024 at 22:46, Michael Banck <mba...@gmx.net> wrote:
> > How about the indislive flag instead? I haven't looked at the code, but
> > from the documentation ("If false, the index is in process of being
> > dropped, and
> > should be ignored for all purposes") it sounds like we made be able to
> > piggy-back on that instead?
>
> Doing that could cause an UPDATE which would ordinarily not be
> eligible for a HOT-update to become a HOT-update. That would cause
> issues if the index is enabled again as the index wouldn't have been
> updated during the UPDATE.
>
> I don't see the big deal with adding a new flag. There's even a free
> padding byte to put this flag in after indisreplident, so we don't
> have to worry about using more memory.
>
> David
>
--
Kind Regards,
Shayon Mukherjee
