Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> writes:
> Not to hijack the thread even further in the wrong direction, but I
> think what Corey really wants here is to stop maintaining the index at
> retail while preserving the existing definition and existing index
> data, and then to do a wholesale fix-up, like what is done in the 2nd
> half of a create index concurrently, upon re-enabling it.
Meh. Why not just drop the index? I mean, yeah, you might save a few
keystrokes when and if you ever re-enable it, but this sure seems like
a feature in search of a use-case.
regards, tom lane
