Re: Let's drop two obsolete features which are bear-traps for novices

On 11/01/2014 02:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> A REINDEX is imo unlikely to be acceptable. It takes long (why would you
>> bother on a small table?) and locks the relation/indexes.
> I think the goalposts just took a vacation to Acapulco.
>
> What exactly do you think is going to make a crashed unlogged index valid
> again without a REINDEX?  Certainly the people who are currently using
> hash indexes in the way Andrew describes are expecting to have to REINDEX
> them after a crash.
>
>             


That's certainly true. They were warned of the risks and found them 
acceptable.

The real question here is whether the table should continue to be usable 
in a degraded state until it's reindexed.

cheers

andrew