On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 7:21 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> writes:
> > AFAICS, this problem exists in 9.6 and prior branches as well,
> > although, I can't test it. I am not sure whether we need to backpatch
> > this beyond 10 (where hash indexes are WAL logged) as prior to that
> > hash-indexes are anyway not-reliable. What's your opinion?
>
> Presumably, any patch for pre-10 would look completely different
> as the hash index code was quite different. I can't see that it's
> worth the development time to do something there, especially if
> you lack an easy way to test.
>
The fix might or might not be different, but lack of test is
definitely the reason for not pursuing it. I have pushed the fix and
back-patched it till 10.
Thanks for the input.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
