Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > One issue would be that even disabled indexes would need to be updated > when there are new rows. If you don't update the index when it's > disabled, then re-enabling will essentially need to rebuild the index. I assume that's what he wants. However, it's not immediately clear that there's a sufficient use case for this to justify the extra apparatus compared to just DROP INDEX (and recreate it later). regards, tom lane
