On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coe...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 1:12 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Committed with those changes. > > Thanks for above corrections and commit. But, There are couple of > things that we might have to change once the patch for 'WAL in Hash > Indexes' gets checked-in. > > 1) The test-case result needs to be changed because there won't be any > WARNING message : "WARNING: hash indexes are not WAL-logged and their > use is discouraged". >
I think this should be changed in WAL patch itself, no need to handle it separately. > 2) From WAL patch for Hash Indexes onwards, we won't have any zero > pages in Hash Indexes so I don't think we need to have column showing > zero pages (zero_pages). When working on WAL in hash indexes, we found > that WAL routine 'XLogReadBufferExtended' does not expect a page to be > completely zero page else it returns Invalid Buffer. To fix this, we > started initializing freed overflow page and newly allocated bucket > pages using _hash_pageinit() hence I don't think there will be any > zero pages from here onwards. > Can't we use PageIsEmpty() to show such information? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
