Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> writes:
> AFAICS, this problem exists in 9.6 and prior branches as well,
> although, I can't test it. I am not sure whether we need to backpatch
> this beyond 10 (where hash indexes are WAL logged) as prior to that
> hash-indexes are anyway not-reliable. What's your opinion?
Presumably, any patch for pre-10 would look completely different
as the hash index code was quite different. I can't see that it's
worth the development time to do something there, especially if
you lack an easy way to test.
regards, tom lane
