On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 8:46 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> wrote: >> On 6/12/15 5:00 PM, Thom Brown wrote: >>> >>> On 18 October 2014 at 15:36, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 02:36:55PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 12:56:52PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> David G Johnston <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The question is whether we explain the implications of not being >>>>>>> WAL-logged >>>>>>> in an error message or simply state the fact and let the documentation >>>>>>> explain the hazards - basically just output: >>>>>>> "hash indexes are not WAL-logged and their use is discouraged" >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> +1. The warning message is not the place to be trying to explain all >>>>>> the >>>>>> details. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> OK, updated patch attached. >>>> >>>> >>>> Patch applied. >>> >>> >>> I only just noticed this item when I read the release notes. Should >>> we bother warning when used on an unlogged table? >> >> >> Not really; but I think the bigger question at this point is if we want to >> change it this late in the game. > > Changing it even during beta looks acceptable to me. I think that it > is mainly a matter to have a patch (here is one), and someone to push > it as everybody here seem to agree that for UNLOGGED tables this > warning has little sense.
I think you should be testing RelationNeedsWAL(), not the relpersistence directly. The same point applies for temporary indexes. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
