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
> 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.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: