On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 at 04:40, Robert Treat <r...@xzilla.net> wrote: > You are going to have a guc either way, which > means you are going to have to explain a bunch of these different > caveats in BOTH solutions. It's just that in one of the solutions, you > are further entangling the usage with DDL changes (and the additional > caveats that come with that).
IMO, having this GUC to force the use of invisible indexes is quite strange. In my view, it detracts from the guarantees that you're meant to get from disabling indexes. What if some connection has use_invisible_index set to true? The DBA might assume all is well after having seen nobody complain and then drop the index. The user might then complain. David
