Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes: > Yeah, and there's this: I've had at least one client who switched to > using hash indexes and got a significant benefit from it precisely > because they aren't WAL logged. They could afford to rebuild the indexes > in the unlikely event of a crash, but the IO gain was worth it to them. > Neither could they have tolerated unlogged tables - they wanted crash > safety for their data. After talking through the various options with > them they decided this was the best choice, and it might be sad to > remove that choice from people.
That's an interesting story, but it seems like what it points to is the need for a general "unlogged index" feature, rather than depending on what's universally agreed to be an implementation deficiency of hash indexes. So it sounds like an independent topic. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers