Re: [HACKERS] bumping HASH_VERSION to 3

On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 09:11:29AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 5:26 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 04:54:27PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Amit Kapila > >> wrote: > >> > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Robert Haas

Re: [HACKERS] bumping HASH_VERSION to 3

On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 5:26 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 04:54:27PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Amit Kapila >> >> wrote: >

Re: [HACKERS] bumping HASH_VERSION to 3

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 04:54:27PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Amit Kapila > >> wrote: > >>> I will send an updated patch once we agree on above poin

Re: [HACKERS] bumping HASH_VERSION to 3

On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 2:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Amit Kapila >>> wrote: I will send an updated patch once we agree on above points. >>> >>>

Re: [HACKERS] bumping HASH_VERSION to 3

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >>> I will send an updated patch once we agree on above points. >> >> Sounds good. > > Attached patch addresses all the comments as dis

Re: [HACKERS] bumping HASH_VERSION to 3

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > >> I will send an updated patch once we agree on above points. > > Sounds good. > Attached patch addresses all the comments as discussed. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http

Re: [HACKERS] bumping HASH_VERSION to 3

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> +snprintf(output_path, sizeof(output_path), "reindex_hash.sql"); >> >> This looks suspiciously pointless. The contents of output_path will >> always be precisely "reindex_hash.sql"; you could just char >> *output_path = "reindex_hash.sql"

Re: [HACKERS] bumping HASH_VERSION to 3

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 8:57 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Noah Misch wrote: >> The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item. Robert, >> since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open >> item. If some other commit is

Re: [HACKERS] bumping HASH_VERSION to 3

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Noah Misch wrote: > The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item. Robert, > since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open > item. If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a > v10 open

Re: [HACKERS] bumping HASH_VERSION to 3

On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 11:25:22AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 11:53 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 02:48:05PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> +1, as long as we're clear on what will happen when pg_upgrade'ing > >> an installation containing hash indexes.

Re: [HACKERS] bumping HASH_VERSION to 3

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 11:53 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 02:48:05PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> +1, as long as we're clear on what will happen when pg_upgrade'ing >> an installation containing hash indexes. I think a minimum requirement is >> that it succeed and be able to s

Re: [HACKERS] bumping HASH_VERSION to 3

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 02:48:05PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> +1, as long as we're clear on what will happen when pg_upgrade'ing >> an installation containing hash indexes. I think a minimum requirement is >> that it succeed and be able to st

Re: [HACKERS] bumping HASH_VERSION to 3

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 02:48:05PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > +1, as long as we're clear on what will happen when pg_upgrade'ing > an installation containing hash indexes. I think a minimum requirement is > that it succeed and be able to start up, and allow the user to manually > REINDEX such indexe

Re: [HACKERS] bumping HASH_VERSION to 3

On 03/31/2017 11:19 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Robert Haas > wrote: > > Starting a new thread about this to get more visibility. > > Despite the extensive work that has been done on hash indexes this > release, we have

Re: [HACKERS] bumping HASH_VERSION to 3

Robert Haas writes: > Forcing a reindex in v10 kills three birds > with one stone: > - No old, not logged, possibly corrupt hash indexes floating around > after an upgrade to v10. > - Can remove the backward-compatibility code added by > 293e24e507838733aba4748b514536af2d39d7f2 instead of keeping

Re: [HACKERS] bumping HASH_VERSION to 3

On 03/31/2017 02:17 PM, Robert Haas wrote: Starting a new thread about this to get more visibility. Despite the extensive work that has been done on hash indexes this release, we have thus far not made any change to the on-disk format that is not nominally backward-compatible. Commit 293e24e507

Re: [HACKERS] bumping HASH_VERSION to 3

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > Starting a new thread about this to get more visibility. > > Despite the extensive work that has been done on hash indexes this > release, we have thus far not made any change to the on-disk format > that is not nominally backward-compatible.

[HACKERS] bumping HASH_VERSION to 3

Starting a new thread about this to get more visibility. Despite the extensive work that has been done on hash indexes this release, we have thus far not made any change to the on-disk format that is not nominally backward-compatible. Commit 293e24e507838733aba4748b514536af2d39d7f2 did make a cha