| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, Mithun Cy <mithun(dot)cy(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Hash Indexes |
| Date: | 2016-09-21 19:35:44 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaE5zxTqm2_fSK5kOwyQmr-4HoGjzrprRL=13qBAqsiPw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> We are? I thought we were trying to preserve on-disk compatibility so that
> we didn't have to rebuild the indexes.
Well, that was my initial idea, but ...
> Is the concern that lack of WAL logging has generated some subtle
> unrecognized on disk corruption?
...this is a consideration in the other direction.
> If I were using hash indexes on a production system and I experienced a
> crash, I would surely reindex immediately after the crash, not wait until
> the next pg_upgrade.
You might be more responsible, and more knowledgeable, than our typical user.
>> But is that a good thing to do? That's a little harder to
>> say.
>
> How could we go about deciding that? Do you think anything short of coding
> it up and seeing how it works would suffice? I agree that if we want to do
> it, v10 is the time. But we have about 6 months yet on that.
Yes, I think some experimentation will be needed.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Geoff Winkless | 2016-09-21 19:44:15 | Re: Hash Indexes |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2016-09-21 19:12:43 | Re: Hash Indexes |