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.
cheers
andrew
