On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 8:16 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > Though I don't see it's bug and agree that the message is not > proper, currently we can create hash indexes without no warning > on unlogged tables and it causes a problem with replication.
That's true, but I don't believe it's a sufficient reason to make a change. Before 84aa8ba128a08e6fdebb2497c7a79ebf18093e12 (2014), we didn't issue a warning about hash indexes in any case whatsoever; we relied on people reading the documentation to find out about the limitations of hash indexes. They can still do that in any cases that the warning doesn't adequately cover. I really don't think it's worth kibitzing the cases where this message is emitted in released branches, or the text of the message, just as we didn't back-patch the message itself into older releases that are still supported. We need a compelling reason to change things in stable branches, and the fact that a warning message added in 2014 doesn't cover every limitation of a pre-1996 hash index implementation is not an emergency. Let's save back-patching for actual bugs, or we'll forever be fiddling with things in stable branches that would be better left alone. -- 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: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
