On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 9:30 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 11:24 PM Paul A Jungwirth > <p...@illuminatedcomputing.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 5:28 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I don't see this function on the master branch. Is this function name > > > correct? Are you looking at some different branch? > > > > Sorry about that! You're right, I was on my multirange branch. But I > > see the same thing on latest master (but calling hash_range instead of > > hash_range_internal). > > > > No problem, attached is a patch with a proposed commit message. I > will wait for a few days to see if Heikki/Jeff or anyone else responds > back, otherwise will commit and backpatch this early next week. >
Today, while I was trying to backpatch, I realized that hash indexes were not WAL-logged before 10 and they give warning "WARNING: hash indexes are not WAL-logged and their use is discouraged". However, this test has nothing to do with the durability of hash-indexes, so I think we can safely backpatch, but still, I thought it is better to check if anybody thinks that is not a good idea. In back-branches, we are already using hash-index in regression tests in some cases like enum.sql, macaddr.sql, etc., so adding for one more genuine case should be fine. OTOH, we can back-patch till 10, but the drawback is the tests will be inconsistent across branches. Does anyone think it is not a good idea to backpatch this till 9.4? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com