On 2022-Sep-25, Tom Lane wrote: > That's what it's saying *now*, but after rereading this whole thread > I see that it apparently said something different last week. So the > coverage is probabilistic, which squares with this discussion and > with some tests I just did locally. That's not good.
Completely agreed. > I propose that we revert 4fb5c794e and instead add separate test > cases that just create unlogged indexes (I guess they don't actually > need to *do* anything with them?). WFM. I can do it next week, or feel free to do so if you want. > Looks like dec8ad367 could be reverted as well, in view of 2f2e24d90. Yeah, sounds good. -- Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
