Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi> writes:
> 3. Oh right, bitmap scan, I forgot about that one. Let's disable that too:
Yeah, I've hit that too, although more often (for me) it's the first
choice of plan. In any case, it usually takes more than one change
to get to a seqscan.
> It almost feels like we should have yet another GUC to disable index
> scans, index-only scans and bitmap index scans. "enable_indexes=off" or
> something.
There's something to be said for that idea. Breaking compatibility is
a little easier to stomach if there's a clear convenience win, and
this'd offer that.
regards, tom lane
