At Thu, 21 Sep 2017 20:35:01 -0400, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote in <CA+TgmobXYq1ht8R76RTvun0pY85-=oov8ey2fv8nhnnm7gd...@mail.gmail.com> > 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.
Sorry for annoying you and thank you. I agree with that after just knowing the reason is not precisely (3) (we already have WARNING for the problematic ops). regards, -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
