[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       postgresql-general
Subject:    Re: [HACKERS] GSoC on WAL-logging hash indexes
From:       Tom Lane <tgl () sss ! pgh ! pa ! us>
Date:       2014-04-30 21:41:57
Message-ID: 29533.1398894117 () sss ! pgh ! pa ! us
[Download RAW message or body]

Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu> writes:
> But imnsho doing nothing is a bad idea. We should have long ago either
> added WAL logging or removed the index type. We shouldn't have left a
> foot-gun that large lying around for so long.

We can't remove the hash index type, nor move it to an extension,
because it is the operator classes for the built-in hash index AM
that tell the planner and executor how to do hashing for arbitrary
datatypes.  And we certainly do not want to give up hashing-based
query plans, whatever you may think of hash indexes.

We really oughta fix the WAL situation, not just band-aid around it.

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]