On 2014-11-01 14:56:35 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > 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. One argument in that direction imo is HS. We certainly would just generally ignore unlogged indexes for querying while InRecovery, right? Because otherwise HS would become pretty useless. And I think it'd be pretty wierd if things worked on HS and not on the primary (or the HS after promotion). Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
