On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 11:40:27AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 4:53 AM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 1:45 AM, Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
WARNING: hash indexes are not crash-safe, not replicated, and their
use is
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 4:53 AM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 1:45 AM, Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
WARNING: hash indexes are not crash-safe, not replicated, and their
use is discouraged
+1
I'm not wild about this rewording; I think that if
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 3:06 AM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
I think you should be testing RelationNeedsWAL(), not the
relpersistence directly. The same point applies for temporary
indexes.
Indeed. Patch updated
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
I think you should be testing RelationNeedsWAL(), not the
relpersistence directly. The same point applies for temporary
indexes.
Indeed. Patch updated attached.
--
Michael
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/indexcmds.c
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 8:46 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com wrote:
On 6/12/15 5:00 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
On 18 October 2014 at 15:36, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com wrote:
On 6/12/15 5:00 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
On 18 October 2014 at 15:36, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 02:36:55PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 12:56:52PM -0400, Tom
On 6/12/15 5:00 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
On 18 October 2014 at 15:36, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 02:36:55PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 12:56:52PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
David G Johnston david.g.johns...@gmail.com writes:
The question
On 18 October 2014 at 15:36, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 02:36:55PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 12:56:52PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
David G Johnston david.g.johns...@gmail.com writes:
The question is whether we explain the implications
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 02:36:55PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 12:56:52PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
David G Johnston david.g.johns...@gmail.com writes:
The question is whether we explain the implications of not being
WAL-logged
in an error message or simply state
Bruce Momjian wrote
Now that we have the create hash index warning in 9.5, I realized that
we don't warn about hash indexes with PITR, only crash recovery and
streaming. This patch fixes that.
Is the wording cannot be used too vague. The CREATE INDEX manual
page has the words give wrong
David G Johnston david.g.johns...@gmail.com writes:
The question is whether we explain the implications of not being WAL-logged
in an error message or simply state the fact and let the documentation
explain the hazards - basically just output:
hash indexes are not WAL-logged and their use is
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 12:56:52PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
David G Johnston david.g.johns...@gmail.com writes:
The question is whether we explain the implications of not being WAL-logged
in an error message or simply state the fact and let the documentation
explain the hazards - basically
12 matches
Mail list logo
