Re: Doc chapter for Hash Indexes

On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 3:11 PM Simon Riggs
<simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 4:17 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 1:29 AM Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> > >
> > > aOn Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 12:56:51PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 5:12 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 2:31 PM Simon Riggs
> > > > > <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I attach both clean and compare versions.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Do we want to hold this work for PG15 or commit in PG14 and backpatch
> > > > > it till v10 where we have made hash indexes crash-safe? I would vote
> > > > > for committing in PG14 and backpatch it till v10, however, I am fine
> > > > > if we want to commit just to PG14 or PG15.
> > > >
> > > > Backpatch makes sense to me, but since not everyone will be reading
> > > > this thread, I would look towards PG15 only first. We may yet pick up
> > > > additional corrections or additions before a backpatch, if that is
> > > > agreed.
> > >
> > > Yeah, I think backpatching makes sense.
> > >
> >
> > I checked and found that there are two commits (7c75ef5715 and
> > 22c5e73562) in the hash index code in PG-11 which might have impacted
> > what we write in the documentation. However, AFAICS, nothing proposed
> > in the patch would change due to those commits. Even, if we don't want
> > to back patch, is there any harm in committing this to PG-14?
>
> I've reviewed those commits and the related code, so I agree.
>

Do you agree to just commit this to PG-14 or to commit in PG-14 and
backpatch till PG-10?

> As a result, I've tweaked the wording around VACUUM slightly.
>

Thanks, the changes look good to me.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.