Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On Sun, 2009-08-09 at 11:41 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Er, what's the point of that?  
> 
> > Rebuilding damaged indexes automatically, rather than barfing. I regard
> > that as a long term extension of crash recovery to bring a database back
> > to a usable state.
> 
> Having crash recovery auto-rebuild indexes it thinks are damaged seems
> to me to be a pretty horrid idea.  Just for starters, it would overwrite
> forensic evidence about the cause of the damage.  A DBA might not wish
> the rebuild to happen *right then* in any case.

Are hash indexes going to need auto-rebuild, or can we make them
WAL-safe eventually?

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to

• Re: pgsql: rm_cleanup functions need to be allowed to write WAL entries. at 2009-08-09 21:26:49 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: pgsql: rm_cleanup functions need to be allowed to write WAL entries. at 2009-08-10 19:15:00 from Tom Lane

pgsql-committers by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2009-08-10 19:15:00
	Subject: Re: pgsql: rm_cleanup functions need to be allowed to write WAL entries.
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2009-08-10 18:29:27
	Subject: pgsql: Support EEEE (scientific notation) in to_char().