On 6/12/15 5:00 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
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?
Not really; but I think the bigger question at this point is if we want
to change it this late in the game.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
