Alvaro Herrera <> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Not that I've heard of.  It's very hard to muster any enthusiasm for
>> improving hash indexes unless their lack of WAL-logging is fixed first.

> This is really strange though.  Surely adding WAL-logging is not an
> enormous task anymore ... I mean, we're undertaking far larger efforts
> now, the WAL logging code is simpler than before, and we even have a
> tool (ok, gotta streamline that one a little bit) to verify that the
> results are correct.

ISTR that we discussed this previously and ran into some stumbling block
or other that made it less-than-trivial.  Don't recall what though.

                        regards, tom lane

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to