| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Let's drop two obsolete features which are bear-traps for novices |
| Date: | 2014-11-04 02:44:22 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQ2Q8nzVhu18K4ywXJquPODpa_Vx6oq0n1bR7x7rOK1yA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 2:30 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> In the case of hash indexes, because we still have to have the hash
> opclasses in core, there's no way that it could be pushed out as an
> extension module even if we otherwise had full support for AMs as
> extensions. So what I hear you proposing is "let's break this so
> thoroughly that it *can't* be fixed". I'm not on board with that.
> I think the WARNING will do just fine to discourage novices who are
> not familiar with the state of the hash AM. In the meantime, we
> could push forward with the idea of making hash indexes automatically
> unlogged, so that recovering from a crash wouldn't be quite so messy/
> dangerous.
>
There is as well another way: finally support WAL-logging for hash indexes.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2014-11-04 03:04:54 | Re: PENDING_LIST_CLEANUP_SIZE - maximum size of GIN pending list Re: HEAD seems to generate larger WAL regarding GIN index |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2014-11-04 02:30:20 | Re: Let's drop two obsolete features which are bear-traps for novices |