| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Nasty problem in hash indexes |
| Date: | 2003-08-29 04:38:40 |
| Message-ID: | 25074.1062131920@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"scott.marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Neil Conway wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 05:37:39PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> <shrug> Who's to say? We've found bugs in the btree logic recently,
>>> too.
>>
>> I'd rather print a loud warning when a hash index is created, but keep
>> the code in the tree, than just remove it entirely.
> Postgresql's philosophy has always seemed to be correctness first,
> convenience and performance second.
I agree --- we either fix this bug or remove hash indexes. There's no
third choice. However, I don't agree with killing hash indexes just
because there *might* be more bugs in them. If we have an impractical-
to-fix bug in front of us, then it's time for harsh measures, but
otherwise ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | scott.marlowe | 2003-08-29 05:17:25 | Re: Nasty problem in hash indexes |
| Previous Message | scott.marlowe | 2003-08-29 04:28:21 | Re: Nasty problem in hash indexes |