On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 09:07:13AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 9:30 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 11:24 PM Paul A Jungwirth
<p...@illuminatedcomputing.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 5:28 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't see this function on the master branch. Is this function name
> > correct? Are you looking at some different branch?
>
> Sorry about that! You're right, I was on my multirange branch. But I
> see the same thing on latest master (but calling hash_range instead of
> hash_range_internal).
>
No problem, attached is a patch with a proposed commit message. I
will wait for a few days to see if Heikki/Jeff or anyone else responds
back, otherwise will commit and backpatch this early next week.
Today, while I was trying to backpatch, I realized that hash indexes
were not WAL-logged before 10 and they give warning "WARNING: hash
indexes are not WAL-logged and their use is discouraged". However,
this test has nothing to do with the durability of hash-indexes, so I
think we can safely backpatch, but still, I thought it is better to
check if anybody thinks that is not a good idea. In back-branches,
we are already using hash-index in regression tests in some cases like
enum.sql, macaddr.sql, etc., so adding for one more genuine case
should be fine. OTOH, we can back-patch till 10, but the drawback is
the tests will be inconsistent across branches. Does anyone think it
is not a good idea to backpatch this till 9.4?
By "inconsistent" you mean that pre-10 versions will have different
expected output than versions with WAL-logged hash indexes? I don't see
why that would be a reason not to backpatch to all supported versions,
considering we already have the same difference for other test suites.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
