Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Not that I've heard of. It's very hard to muster any enthusiasm for
>> improving hash indexes unless their lack of WAL-logging is fixed first.
> This is really strange though. Surely adding WAL-logging is not an
> enormous task anymore ... I mean, we're undertaking far larger efforts
> now, the WAL logging code is simpler than before, and we even have a
> tool (ok, gotta streamline that one a little bit) to verify that the
> results are correct.
ISTR that we discussed this previously and ran into some stumbling block
or other that made it less-than-trivial. Don't recall what though.
regards, tom lane
