+1 for the new flag as well, since it'd be nice to be able to enable/disable indexes without having to worry about the missed updates / having to rebuild it.
On Tue, 10 Sept 2024 at 22:46, Michael Banck <mbanck@gmx.net> wrote: > How about the indislive flag instead? I haven't looked at the code, but > from the documentation ("If false, the index is in process of being > dropped, and > should be ignored for all purposes") it sounds like we made be able to > piggy-back on that instead?
Doing that could cause an UPDATE which would ordinarily not be eligible for a HOT-update to become a HOT-update. That would cause issues if the index is enabled again as the index wouldn't have been updated during the UPDATE.
I don't see the big deal with adding a new flag. There's even a free padding byte to put this flag in after indisreplident, so we don't have to worry about using more memory.
