Re: range test for hash index?

On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 4:03 AM Tomas Vondra
<tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 09:07:13AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 9:30 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 11:24 PM Paul A Jungwirth
> >> <pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 5:28 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >> > > I don't see this function on the master branch. Is this function name
> >> > > correct? Are you looking at some different branch?
> >> >
> >> > Sorry about that! You're right, I was on my multirange branch. But I
> >> > see the same thing on latest master (but calling hash_range instead of
> >> > hash_range_internal).
> >> >
> >>
> >> No problem, attached is a patch with a proposed commit message. I
> >> will wait for a few days to see if Heikki/Jeff or anyone else responds
> >> back, otherwise will commit and backpatch this early next week.
> >>
> >
> >Today, while I was trying to backpatch, I realized that hash indexes
> >were not WAL-logged before 10 and they give warning "WARNING: hash
> >indexes are not WAL-logged and their use is discouraged". However,
> >this test has nothing to do with the durability of hash-indexes, so I
> >think we can safely backpatch, but still, I thought it is better to
> >check if anybody thinks that is not a good idea. In back-branches,
> >we are already using hash-index in regression tests in some cases like
> >enum.sql, macaddr.sql, etc., so adding for one more genuine case
> >should be fine. OTOH, we can back-patch till 10, but the drawback is
> >the tests will be inconsistent across branches. Does anyone think it
> >is not a good idea to backpatch this till 9.4?
> >
>
> By "inconsistent" you mean that pre-10 versions will have different
> expected output than versions with WAL-logged hash indexes?
>

Yes.

> I don't see
> why that would be a reason not to backpatch to all supported versions,
> considering we already have the same difference for other test suites.
>

Yeah, I also think so. I will do this today.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com