On 18 October 2014 at 15:36, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 02:36:55PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 12:56:52PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> > David G Johnston <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> writes: >> > > The question is whether we explain the implications of not being >> > > WAL-logged >> > > in an error message or simply state the fact and let the documentation >> > > explain the hazards - basically just output: >> > > "hash indexes are not WAL-logged and their use is discouraged" >> > >> > +1. The warning message is not the place to be trying to explain all the >> > details. >> >> OK, updated patch attached. > > Patch applied.
I only just noticed this item when I read the release notes. Should we bother warning when used on an unlogged table? -- Thom -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
