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.
Right, this is certainly not a new problem. It's not even a new problem
in the context of replication or hot standby, because we already have
the problem with PITR and file-based log shipping.
Also, it's not just a problem *during* the recovery. The index is just
as corrupt after the recovery has finished.
I think we should just leave it alone for 8.4, and fix it properly in a
future relase by implementing WAL-logging for hash indexes.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
