On Wed, 2008-12-17 at 17:42 -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > Hot Standby won't work with hash indexes because they are
> > non-recoverable.
> >
> > We have a number of ways of dealing with this:
> >
>
> i don't see a reason for inventing the wheel, we don't have wal for
> hash indexes because makes those more slow without any benefit at
> all... now there will be one...
Well, we're running short of time for 8.4 to put it mildly, so option
(1) is not on my radar. Even if somebody wrote WAL support for hash
indexes right now, I would be much happier with my other two suggestions
from a robustness perspective. We don't yet have a mechanism for an
index AM to say "damn, this index is screwed up, don't use it". So a
rushed implementation of WAL support would be counterproductive, ISTM.
So it's either (2), (3) or another option.
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.comPostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
