| From: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David G Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Hash index creation warning |
| Date: | 2015-06-12 22:00:54 |
| Message-ID: | CAA-aLv7G5aZu3eUT0s275qdavnh7bDmEUQHeEyQoN+rr_SJKPA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 18 October 2014 at 15:36, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 02:36:55PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 12:56:52PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> > David G Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> > > The question is whether we explain the implications of not being WAL-logged
>> > > in an error message or simply state the fact and let the documentation
>> > > explain the hazards - basically just output:
>> > > "hash indexes are not WAL-logged and their use is discouraged"
>> >
>> > +1. The warning message is not the place to be trying to explain all the
>> > details.
>>
>> OK, updated patch attached.
>
> Patch applied.
I only just noticed this item when I read the release notes. Should
we bother warning when used on an unlogged table?
--
Thom
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Nolan | 2015-06-12 22:07:01 | Re: On columnar storage |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-06-12 20:28:04 | Re: Further issues with jsonb semantics, documentation |