On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 1:29 AM Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>
> aOn Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 12:56:51PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 5:12 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 2:31 PM Simon Riggs
> > > <simon.riggs@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I attach both clean and compare versions.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Do we want to hold this work for PG15 or commit in PG14 and backpatch
> > > it till v10 where we have made hash indexes crash-safe? I would vote
> > > for committing in PG14 and backpatch it till v10, however, I am fine
> > > if we want to commit just to PG14 or PG15.
> >
> > Backpatch makes sense to me, but since not everyone will be reading
> > this thread, I would look towards PG15 only first. We may yet pick up
> > additional corrections or additions before a backpatch, if that is
> > agreed.
>
> Yeah, I think backpatching makes sense.
>
I checked and found that there are two commits (7c75ef5715 and
22c5e73562) in the hash index code in PG-11 which might have impacted
what we write in the documentation. However, AFAICS, nothing proposed
in the patch would change due to those commits. Even, if we don't want
to back patch, is there any harm in committing this to PG-14?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
