From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-committers <pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pgsql: hash: Add write-ahead logging support. |
Date: | 2017-03-14 18:22:27 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ=ML7mUNhNcVhxc5yzU1RjnYtMk3f3Fxo-d-kQ3hK9mA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers |
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 2:18 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Robert Haas <rhaas(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
>>>> hash: Add write-ahead logging support.
>
>>> This bit in access/hash/README, lines 368ff, appears obsolete:
>>>
>>> Although we can survive a failure to split a bucket, a crash is likely to
>>> corrupt the index, since hash indexes are not yet WAL-logged.
>>>
>>> Perhaps we can just delete that para. If not, what should it say now?
>
>> That's obsolete, and can just be removed.
>
> You gonna do it, or you want me to?
If you're feeling motivated, have at it. Otherwise, I'll do it in a
day or two after I see what other complaints get reported that might
be addressed at the same time.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-03-14 18:39:07 | Re: pgsql: hash: Add write-ahead logging support. |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-03-14 18:18:07 | Re: pgsql: hash: Add write-ahead logging support. |