Re: Let's drop two obsolete features which are bear-traps for novices

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: 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 18:39:21
Message-ID: 8048.1414867161@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> A REINDEX is imo unlikely to be acceptable. It takes long (why would you
> bother on a small table?) and locks the relation/indexes.

I think the goalposts just took a vacation to Acapulco.

What exactly do you think is going to make a crashed unlogged index valid
again without a REINDEX? Certainly the people who are currently using
hash indexes in the way Andrew describes are expecting to have to REINDEX
them after a crash.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2014-11-01 18:43:13 Re: Let's drop two obsolete features which are bear-traps for novices
Previous Message Andres Freund 2014-11-01 18:34:14 Re: Let's drop two obsolete features which are bear-traps for novices