<div dir="ltr">On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 2:30 AM, Tom Lane <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us"
target="_blank">tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us</a>></span>wrote:<br /><div class="gmail_extra"><div
class="gmail_quote"><blockquoteclass="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">Inthe case of hash indexes, because we still have to have the hash<br /> opclasses in core,
there'sno way that it could be pushed out as an<br /> extension module even if we otherwise had full support for AMs
as<br/> extensions. So what I hear you proposing is "let's break this so<br /> thoroughly that it *can't* be fixed".
I'mnot on board with that.<br /> I think the WARNING will do just fine to discourage novices who are<br /> not familiar
withthe state of the hash AM. In the meantime, we<br /> could push forward with the idea of making hash indexes
automatically<br/> unlogged, so that recovering from a crash wouldn't be quite so messy/<br /> dangerous.<br
/></blockquote></div>Thereis as well another way: finally support WAL-logging for hash indexes.<br />-- <br /><div
class="gmail_signature">Michael<br/></div></div></div>
