On 2014-05-16 12:58:57 +0100, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > One of the arguments against Bruce's proposal to print a warning at hash
> > index creation is that it's a particularly ineffective form of
> > deprecation. In your example, since the hash index was created by some
> > app not manually, I'll bet nobody would have seen/noticed the warning
> > even if there had been one.
>
> I suggested we make a GUC allow_unrecoverable_indexes and default it
> to false. If you want to create hash indexes you need to set it to
> true or else you just get errors.
Fine with me.
> A more general solution is to emit a WAL record the first time a
> non-crashsafe index is touched after a checkpoint. On a slave that
> record could just mark the index invalid.
Not trivially no. Recovery can't write to the catalog.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
