On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 11:44:22AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 2:30 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > In the case of hash indexes, because we still have to have the hash > > opclasses in core, there's no way that it could be pushed out as an > > extension module even if we otherwise had full support for AMs as > > extensions. So what I hear you proposing is "let's break this so > > thoroughly that it *can't* be fixed". I'm not on board with that. > > I think the WARNING will do just fine to discourage novices who are > > not familiar with the state of the hash AM. In the meantime, we > > could push forward with the idea of making hash indexes automatically > > unlogged, so that recovering from a crash wouldn't be quite so messy/ > > dangerous. > > > There is as well another way: finally support WAL-logging for hash indexes.
+1 Ken -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
