Re: BUG #10329: Could not read block 0 in file "base/56100265/57047884": read only 0 of 8192 bytes

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Olivier Macchioni <olivier(dot)macchioni(at)wingo(dot)ch>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #10329: Could not read block 0 in file "base/56100265/57047884": read only 0 of 8192 bytes
Date: 2014-05-15 19:25:33
Message-ID: 31813.1400181933@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

Olivier Macchioni <olivier(dot)macchioni(at)wingo(dot)ch> writes:
> - I assume there is a usage for hash indexes and we don't simply want to deprecate them

There's a school of thought that says we *should* deprecate them as
long as we don't have WAL support, but that viewpoint is not universally
subscribed to.

One of the arguments against Bruce's proposal to print a warning at hash
index creation is that it's a particularly ineffective form of
deprecation. In your example, since the hash index was created by some
app not manually, I'll bet nobody would have seen/noticed the warning
even if there had been one.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David G Johnston 2014-05-15 20:05:26 Re: BUG #10329: Could not read block 0 in file "base/56100265/57047884": read only 0 of 8192 bytes
Previous Message Olivier Macchioni 2014-05-15 19:17:59 Re: BUG #10329: Could not read block 0 in file "base/56100265/57047884": read only 0 of 8192 bytes