Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <[email protected]> writes: > > On Sun, 2009-08-09 at 11:41 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Er, what's the point of that? > > > Rebuilding damaged indexes automatically, rather than barfing. I regard > > that as a long term extension of crash recovery to bring a database back > > to a usable state. > > Having crash recovery auto-rebuild indexes it thinks are damaged seems > to me to be a pretty horrid idea. Just for starters, it would overwrite > forensic evidence about the cause of the damage. A DBA might not wish > the rebuild to happen *right then* in any case.
Are hash indexes going to need auto-rebuild, or can we make them WAL-safe eventually? -- Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers
