On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> wrote: > We are? I thought we were trying to preserve on-disk compatibility so that > we didn't have to rebuild the indexes.
Well, that was my initial idea, but ... > Is the concern that lack of WAL logging has generated some subtle > unrecognized on disk corruption? ...this is a consideration in the other direction. > If I were using hash indexes on a production system and I experienced a > crash, I would surely reindex immediately after the crash, not wait until > the next pg_upgrade. You might be more responsible, and more knowledgeable, than our typical user. >> But is that a good thing to do? That's a little harder to >> say. > > How could we go about deciding that? Do you think anything short of coding > it up and seeing how it works would suffice? I agree that if we want to do > it, v10 is the time. But we have about 6 months yet on that. Yes, I think some experimentation will be needed. -- 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
