| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Martín Marqués <martin(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Index corruption with CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Date: | 2017-02-06 00:11:45 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wz=9C6RyDXcbLzhYMqYKfDh62cMbBGv+=n-Vqp0Q3kHBsg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I don't think this kind of black-and-white thinking is very helpful.
> Obviously, data corruption is bad. However, this bug has (from what
> one can tell from this thread) been with us for over a decade; it must
> necessarily be either low-probability or low-severity, or somebody
> would've found it and fixed it before now. Indeed, the discovery of
> this bug was driven by new feature development, not a user report. It
> seems pretty clear that if we try to patch this and get it wrong, the
> effects of our mistake could easily be a lot more serious than the
> original bug.
+1. The fact that it wasn't driven by a user report convinces me that
this is the way to go.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-02-06 00:14:59 | Re: Index corruption with CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-02-06 00:09:10 | Re: Index corruption with CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY |