Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-12-17 at 17:10 -0600, Kenneth Marshall wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 06:07:41PM -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Kenneth Marshall <ktm@rice.edu> wrote:
>>>> Rebuilding a hash index for the case
>>>> for which it is preferred (large, large tables) would be excrutiating.
>>>>
>>> there's such a situation?
>>>
>> As of 8.4, yes.
>
> My understanding was that the hash index type never supported
> recoverability, and could require a rebuild on power failure.
Right, this is certainly not a new problem. It's not even a new problem
in the context of replication or hot standby, because we already have
the problem with PITR and file-based log shipping.
Also, it's not just a problem *during* the recovery. The index is just
as corrupt after the recovery has finished.
I think we should just leave it alone for 8.4, and fix it properly in a
future relase by implementing WAL-logging for hash indexes.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
