On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > On mån, 2012-01-16 at 14:46 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: >> > On mån, 2012-01-16 at 11:17 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> I don't see how setting indisvalid to false helps with this, because >> >> IIUC when a session sees indisvalid = false, it is supposed to avoid >> >> using the index for queries but still make new index entries when a >> >> write operation happens - but to drop an index, I think you'd need to >> >> get into a state where no one was using the index for anything at all. >> > >> > ISTM that one would need to set indisready to false instead. >> >> Maybe we should set both to false? > > Well, ready = false and valid = true doesn't make any sense. There is > only just-created -> ready -> valid. We might as well convert that to a > single "char" column, as you had indicated in your earlier email. But > that's independent of the proposed patch.
Sure, but the point is that I think if you want everyone to stop touching the index, you ought to mark it both not-valid and not-ready, which the current patch doesn't do. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers