Re: Re: BUG #10329: Could not read block 0 in file "base/56100265/57047884": read only 0 of 8192 bytes
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Re: BUG #10329: Could not read block 0 in file "base/56100265/57047884": read only 0 of 8192 bytes |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20140910211351.GE21173@momjian.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Re: BUG #10329: Could not read block 0 in file "base/56100265/57047884": read only 0 of 8192 bytes (Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Re: BUG #10329: Could not read block 0 in file "base/56100265/57047884": read only 0 of 8192 bytes
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 02:07:36PM -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 11:07:43AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> Here is a patch which implements the warning during CREATE INDEX ... > >> HASH. If WAL-logging of hash indexes is ever implemented, we can remove > >> this warning. > > > > Applied, though I used the term "streaming standbys" to match our docs. > > Hmm. The wording of the warning doesn't seem to really indicate > the full scope of the limitation. Any a standby (warm or hot) > maintained by WAL file copying would also be affected (i.e., > streaming replication as the WAL delivery mechanism is irrelevant), > and you also have problems after a database crash or PANIC. I'm > not sure how to state that concisely, though. I am open to improved wording. :-) -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. +
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: