-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Stark Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 8:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Corrupt RTREE index
Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > IS this same issue true for hash or GiST indexes? I think that's true, afaik rtree, GiST, and hash are all not WAL-logged. > On Tue, 2004-12-14 at 13:49, Dann Corbit wrote: > > I suggest a warning (if there is not already one generated) on create > > index for rtree indexes so that users know that they are not fully > > supported. I'm not sure what he means by "supported" though. I'm getting all the support I'm paying for, plus a whole lot more. >> By "supported" I mean the operations against the index are logged, so that if someone kicks the plug out of the wall on my PostgreSQL database and I walk over and plug it back in, I can rely on my btree indexes but all bets are off for hash, rtree and gist indexes when the server restarts. Or perhaps I misunderstand the repercussions of index types not being included in the WAL. << ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
