| From: | Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Preventing index scans for non-recoverable index AMs |
| Date: | 2008-12-17 23:03:49 |
| Message-ID: | 20081217230349.GY26318@it.is.rice.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 10:58:11PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2008-12-17 at 16:47 -0600, Kenneth Marshall wrote:
>
> > I think having your index survive a server power outage or other
> > crash is a very good thing. Rebuilding a hash index for the case
> > for which it is preferred (large, large tables) would be excrutiating.
>
> Completely agree.
>
> We may be outta time to make it happen.
>
I agree. I was working on adding the WAL and ran up against the
deadline. A rushed hash WAL implementation would be worse than the
other alternatives. I plan on picking it back up after 8.4 is out
the door.
Regards,
Ken
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jaime Casanova | 2008-12-17 23:07:41 | Re: Preventing index scans for non-recoverable index AMs |
| Previous Message | Jaime Casanova | 2008-12-17 23:01:55 | Re: Preventing index scans for non-recoverable index AMs |