Re: Re: BUG #10329: Could not read block 0 in file "base/56100265/57047884": read only 0 of 8192 bytes
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Re: BUG #10329: Could not read block 0 in file "base/56100265/57047884": read only 0 of 8192 bytes |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20140911172923.GC15099@alap3.anarazel.de 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 (Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>) |
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 2014-09-11 19:25:13 +0200, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: > On 09/08/2014 03:45 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 09:42:45PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> 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. > >> > >> I think we should have CREATE UNLOGGED INDEX, and simply disallow any > >> hash index from being created unless it's marked as such. > > > > Wow, that sounds much more radical than we discussed. Seeing I got > > push-back just for the warning, I don't see how disabling "logged" WAL > > indexes is going to be accepted. > > > > It is a good idea, though. :-) > > I agree there - implementing CREATE UNLOGGED INDEX and use THAT for hash > indexes seems like a fairly clean thing to me, hash indexes _are_ > unlogged so lets reflect that directly. > I could even envision pg_dump doing that conversion automatically... I think this did came up as a solution before. It's just that nobody found a reasonably easy and clean way to do unlogged indexes on logged tables so far. It's far from trivial. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: