| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Let's drop two obsolete features which are bear-traps for novices |
| Date: | 2014-11-01 19:40:47 |
| Message-ID: | 20141101194047.GQ17790@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-11-01 15:33:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> With current usage of hash indexes, nobody would ever construct such an
> arrangement
Do you think this should only be implemented for hash indexes? I'd think
we'd do it for all existing index AMs?
I'm not all that excited about unlogged hash indexes. Yes, that'll
remove a annoying hazard, but I probably won't use them anyway. I am
somewhat excited about the more general unlogged indexes feature.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-11-01 19:51:39 | Re: Let's drop two obsolete features which are bear-traps for novices |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-11-01 19:33:27 | Re: Let's drop two obsolete features which are bear-traps for novices |