On 11/1/14, 1:45 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
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.
Reviews welcome: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=1563
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
