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
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
In response to
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().|