Re: Hash index creation warning
От | Michael Paquier |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Hash index creation warning |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAB7nPqTa1doC+Xqr0ig3qjYx8e_9_iAcfsyizO1AgT6TY2Tveg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Hash index creation warning (Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Hash index creation warning
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com> wrote: > On 6/12/15 5:00 PM, Thom Brown wrote: >> >> On 18 October 2014 at 15:36, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 02:36:55PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: >>>> >>>> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 12:56:52PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >>>>> >>>>> David G Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>> The question is whether we explain the implications of not being >>>>>> WAL-logged >>>>>> in an error message or simply state the fact and let the documentation >>>>>> explain the hazards - basically just output: >>>>>> "hash indexes are not WAL-logged and their use is discouraged" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> +1. The warning message is not the place to be trying to explain all >>>>> the >>>>> details. >>>> >>>> >>>> OK, updated patch attached. >>> >>> >>> Patch applied. >> >> >> I only just noticed this item when I read the release notes. Should >> we bother warning when used on an unlogged table? > > > Not really; but I think the bigger question at this point is if we want to > change it this late in the game. Changing it even during beta looks acceptable to me. I think that it is mainly a matter to have a patch (here is one), and someone to push it as everybody here seem to agree that for UNLOGGED tables this warning has little sense. -- Michael
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: