From: | Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Doc chapter for Hash Indexes |
Date: | 2021-06-25 09:41:07 |
Message-ID: | CANbhV-Fd+tGHktMzzxJyK9sfSS2sk91s4GNim=t0zgudx-M0cw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 4:17 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 1:29 AM Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> >
> > aOn Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 12:56:51PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 5:12 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 2:31 PM Simon Riggs
> > > > <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I attach both clean and compare versions.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Do we want to hold this work for PG15 or commit in PG14 and backpatch
> > > > it till v10 where we have made hash indexes crash-safe? I would vote
> > > > for committing in PG14 and backpatch it till v10, however, I am fine
> > > > if we want to commit just to PG14 or PG15.
> > >
> > > Backpatch makes sense to me, but since not everyone will be reading
> > > this thread, I would look towards PG15 only first. We may yet pick up
> > > additional corrections or additions before a backpatch, if that is
> > > agreed.
> >
> > Yeah, I think backpatching makes sense.
> >
>
> I checked and found that there are two commits (7c75ef5715 and
> 22c5e73562) in the hash index code in PG-11 which might have impacted
> what we write in the documentation. However, AFAICS, nothing proposed
> in the patch would change due to those commits. Even, if we don't want
> to back patch, is there any harm in committing this to PG-14?
I've reviewed those commits and the related code, so I agree.
As a result, I've tweaked the wording around VACUUM slightly.
Clean and compare patches attached.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
doc_hash_index.v3.patch | application/octet-stream | 7.8 KB |
doc_hash_index.v2-v3.patch | application/octet-stream | 1.1 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2021-06-25 10:12:09 | Re: pgsql: Fix pattern matching logic for logs in TAP tests of pgbench |
Previous Message | Emre Hasegeli | 2021-06-25 09:17:34 | Re: Decouple operator classes from index access methods |