On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 at 14:25, Sami Imseih <samims...@gmail.com> wrote: > I’d argue we should not provide the ALTER option without the GUC, for > more granular control.
If you mean the use_invisible_index GUC, then for transparency here, I'm not in favour of that. I do understand that this might be useful when trying to get a lagged hot-standby which is desperately performing Seq Scans back up and running again while waiting on the replay of the ALTER TABLE VISIBLE, but I just don't feel comfortable being the committer/forever-owner of having a GUC that overwrites something that's explicitly written in the system catalogue tables that is disabled. It's just too magical for my liking. I don't think we have anything like that today. Other committers might feel differently, so if the general consensus is ALTER TABLE+GUC, then I'll leave it to them. I'm by no means saying this to try and influence the discussion here. If the ALTER TABLE alone is not seen as useful and I'm the only one who thinks it would be useful by itself, then I'll just back away from this and let someone else pick it up. David
