On Wed, 2008-12-17 at 18:20 -0800, Jeff Davis wrote: > On Wed, 2008-12-17 at 17:10 -0600, Kenneth Marshall wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 06:07:41PM -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Kenneth Marshall <k...@rice.edu> wrote: > > > > Rebuilding a hash index for the case > > > > for which it is preferred (large, large tables) would be excrutiating. > > > > > > > > > > there's such a situation? > > > > > As of 8.4, yes. > > > > My understanding was that the hash index type never supported > recoverability, and could require a rebuild on power failure. > > If it's not written to WAL before the data page changes, how could it be > safe for recovery? The tuple inserts are logged, so during recovery the > tuple would be put in the table but the index would not be updated. > > What am I missing? >
On second read, it occurs to me that you may have meant: "as of 8.4, hash indexes have never been safe" but I read it as: "as of 8.4, hash indexes will require rebuild on crash, whereas that was unnecessary before 8.4". If you meant the former, you can disregard my question. Regards, Jeff Davis -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers