| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Doc chapter for Hash Indexes |
| Date: | 2021-06-23 11:56:51 |
| Message-ID: | CANbhV-HbnZMsBU3Bqxt_VvymuOm=9FdDsZkiCAeZ6fLXRtQWZA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2021-06-23 12:11:43 | Re: intermittent failures in Cygwin from select_parallel tests |
| Previous Message | Ranier Vilela | 2021-06-23 11:56:06 | Re: Assertion failure in HEAD and 13 after calling COMMIT in a stored proc |