From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David G Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Re: BUG #10329: Could not read block 0 in file "base/56100265/57047884": read only 0 of 8192 bytes |
Date: | 2014-09-11 17:46:37 |
Message-ID: | 20140911174637.GD15099@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On 2014-09-11 13:41:37 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> And practically, how would we implement this for upgrades? Would we have
> pg_dump emit UNLOGGED for any hash creation command?
That seems like an almost trivial problem in comparison to the actual
difficulty of implementing UNLOGGED indexed on LOGGED tables. Yes, I
think forbidding unlogged hash tables + teaching pg_dump a heuristic to
treat any < 9.x hash index as unlogged would be ok.
> That seems to defeat the purpose of this.
Why? It makes hash indexes usable for the cases where it's safe to do
so. Great! It also adds a feature which is really interesting for other
types of indexes.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2014-09-11 17:51:01 | Re: Re: BUG #10329: Could not read block 0 in file "base/56100265/57047884": read only 0 of 8192 bytes |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2014-09-11 17:41:37 | Re: Re: BUG #10329: Could not read block 0 in file "base/56100265/57047884": read only 0 of 8192 bytes |