On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We are?  I thought we were trying to preserve on-disk compatibility so that
> we didn't have to rebuild the indexes.

Well, that was my initial idea, but ...

> Is the concern that lack of WAL logging has generated some subtle
> unrecognized on disk corruption?

...this is a consideration in the other direction.

> If I were using hash indexes on a production system and I experienced a
> crash, I would surely reindex immediately after the crash, not wait until
> the next pg_upgrade.

You might be more responsible, and more knowledgeable, than our typical user.

>> But is that a good thing to do?  That's a little harder to
>> say.
> How could we go about deciding that?  Do you think anything short of coding
> it up and seeing how it works would suffice?  I agree that if we want to do
> it, v10 is the time.  But we have about 6 months yet on that.

Yes, I think some experimentation will be needed.

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to