| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: hash index on unlogged tables doesn't behave as expected |
| Date: | 2017-07-15 08:25:43 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQphdwxXZjrGRG-3cPoPTLer+0CpX6hXTo+1m38jUefpw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 6:27 AM, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I do agree with Amit. I think hash index is slightly trickier (in
> terms of how it is organised) than other indexes and that could be the
> reason for maintaining common code for hashbuild and hashbuildempty.
Well, you both and Robert worked more on this code for PG10 than I
did, so I am fine to rely on your judgement for the final result.
Still I find this special handling quite surprising. All other AMs
just always log FPWs for the init fork pages so I'd rather not break
this treaty, but that's one against the world as things stand
currently on this thread ;)
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-07-15 09:15:12 | Re: Adding -E switch to pg_dumpall |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-07-15 07:46:25 | Re: SCRAM auth and Pgpool-II |