On 2022-Sep-25, Tom Lane wrote:
> That's what it's saying *now*, but after rereading this whole thread
> I see that it apparently said something different last week. So the
> coverage is probabilistic, which squares with this discussion and
> with some tests I just did locally. That's not good.
Completely agreed.
> I propose that we revert 4fb5c794e and instead add separate test
> cases that just create unlogged indexes (I guess they don't actually
> need to *do* anything with them?).
WFM. I can do it next week, or feel free to do so if you want.
> Looks like dec8ad367 could be reverted as well, in view of 2f2e24d90.
Yeah, sounds good.
--
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
