| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: WAL Consistency checking for hash indexes |
| Date: | 2017-03-04 08:59:37 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobjsN_O-zOPjsg=b+q1WAYRJq+SOiqAkmj5ur0LxnhzvQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Kuntal Ghosh
> <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> I've attached a patch which implements WAL consistency checking for
>> hash indexes. This feature is going to be useful for developing and
>> testing of WAL logging for hash index.
>>
>
> I think it is better if you base your patch on (Microvacuum support
> for hash index - https://commitfest.postgresql.org/13/835/).
I'd rather have this based on top of the WAL logging patch, and have
any subsequent patches that tinker with the WAL logging include the
necessary consistency checking changes also.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-03-04 09:16:56 | Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2017-03-04 08:58:57 | Re: Cost model for parallel CREATE INDEX |