Moving my griping to -hackers only On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 8:08 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> dig...@126.com writes: > > postgres=# create unlogged table u_tbl (id int); > > CREATE TABLE > > postgres=# create index idx_u_tbl on u_tbl using bloom (id); > > ERROR: index "idx_u_tbl" already contains data > > Yeah, it looks like nobody ever tested bloom's unlogged-index support; > it doesn't work or even come very close to working. Will fix, thanks > for the report! > I'll tack on my own gripe here, just because. It doesn't give me a lot of confidence in what was committed when the summary sentence for the module says: " bloom is a module which implements an index access method. It comes as an example of custom access methods and generic WAL records usage. But it is also useful in itself. " Honestly, as a user I couldn't care less that bloom is "an example custom access method". I want to know what it does and that it does so reliably, and has a easy-to-use interface. I complained earlier about its lack of direct support for the boolean type. Teodor's response on the thread wasn't particularly encouraging: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/5718a59d.4090...@sigaev.ru I also see that the following -hacker thread didn't get resolved: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cakfquwykrepeselfwb0b85dat466lely8ao-okpwaqpwtmg...@mail.gmail.com I would not be surprised to see additional problems crop up in the module. Tom's characterization above just reinforces that. David J.
