Re: [HACKERS] bumping HASH_VERSION to 3

2017-05-20 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 09:11:29AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 5:26 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 04:54:27PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Amit Kapila > >> wrote: > >> >

Re: [HACKERS] bumping HASH_VERSION to 3

2017-05-20 Thread Amit Kapila
On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 5:26 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 04:54:27PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Robert Haas wrote:

Re: [HACKERS] bumping HASH_VERSION to 3

2017-05-20 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 04:54:27PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Amit Kapila

Re: [HACKERS] bumping HASH_VERSION to 3

2017-05-19 Thread Amit Kapila
On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 2:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Amit Kapila

Re: [HACKERS] bumping HASH_VERSION to 3

2017-05-19 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >>> I will send an updated patch once we agree on above

Re: [HACKERS] bumping HASH_VERSION to 3

2017-05-16 Thread Amit Kapila
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > >> I will send an updated patch once we agree on above points. > > Sounds good. > Attached patch addresses all the comments as discussed.

Re: [HACKERS] bumping HASH_VERSION to 3

2017-05-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> +snprintf(output_path, sizeof(output_path), "reindex_hash.sql"); >> >> This looks suspiciously pointless. The contents of output_path will >> always be precisely "reindex_hash.sql"; you could just char >>

Re: [HACKERS] bumping HASH_VERSION to 3

2017-05-16 Thread Amit Kapila
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 8:57 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Noah Misch wrote: >> The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item. Robert, >> since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own

Re: [HACKERS] bumping HASH_VERSION to 3

2017-05-15 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Noah Misch wrote: > The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item. Robert, > since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open > item. If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not

Re: [HACKERS] bumping HASH_VERSION to 3

2017-05-14 Thread Noah Misch
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 11:25:22AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 11:53 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 02:48:05PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> +1, as long as we're clear on what will happen when pg_upgrade'ing > >> an installation

Re: [HACKERS] bumping HASH_VERSION to 3

2017-05-10 Thread Amit Kapila
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 11:53 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 02:48:05PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> +1, as long as we're clear on what will happen when pg_upgrade'ing >> an installation containing hash indexes. I think a minimum requirement is >> that it

Re: [HACKERS] bumping HASH_VERSION to 3

2017-04-11 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 02:48:05PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> +1, as long as we're clear on what will happen when pg_upgrade'ing >> an installation containing hash indexes. I think a minimum requirement is >> that it

Re: [HACKERS] bumping HASH_VERSION to 3

2017-04-11 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 02:48:05PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > +1, as long as we're clear on what will happen when pg_upgrade'ing > an installation containing hash indexes. I think a minimum requirement is > that it succeed and be able to start up, and allow the user to manually > REINDEX such

Re: [HACKERS] bumping HASH_VERSION to 3

2017-04-03 Thread Joe Conway
On 03/31/2017 11:19 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Robert Haas > wrote: > > Starting a new thread about this to get more visibility. > > Despite the extensive work that has been done on hash indexes

Re: [HACKERS] bumping HASH_VERSION to 3

2017-03-31 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > Forcing a reindex in v10 kills three birds > with one stone: > - No old, not logged, possibly corrupt hash indexes floating around > after an upgrade to v10. > - Can remove the backward-compatibility code added by >

Re: [HACKERS] bumping HASH_VERSION to 3

2017-03-31 Thread Jesper Pedersen
On 03/31/2017 02:17 PM, Robert Haas wrote: Starting a new thread about this to get more visibility. Despite the extensive work that has been done on hash indexes this release, we have thus far not made any change to the on-disk format that is not nominally backward-compatible. Commit

Re: [HACKERS] bumping HASH_VERSION to 3

2017-03-31 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > Starting a new thread about this to get more visibility. > > Despite the extensive work that has been done on hash indexes this > release, we have thus far not made any change to the on-disk format > that is not

[HACKERS] bumping HASH_VERSION to 3

2017-03-31 Thread Robert Haas
Starting a new thread about this to get more visibility. Despite the extensive work that has been done on hash indexes this release, we have thus far not made any change to the on-disk format that is not nominally backward-compatible. Commit 293e24e507838733aba4748b514536af2d39d7f2 did make a