On 11/01/2014 02:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
A REINDEX is imo unlikely to be acceptable. It takes long (why would you
bother on a small table?) and locks the relation/indexes.
I think the goalposts just took a vacation to Acapulco.
What exactly do you think is going to make a crashed unlogged index valid
again without a REINDEX? Certainly the people who are currently using
hash indexes in the way Andrew describes are expecting to have to REINDEX
them after a crash.
That's certainly true. They were warned of the risks and found them
acceptable.
The real question here is whether the table should continue to be usable
in a degraded state until it's reindexed.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
