On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> One of the arguments against Bruce's proposal to print a warning at hash
> index creation is that it's a particularly ineffective form of
> deprecation. In your example, since the hash index was created by some
> app not manually, I'll bet nobody would have seen/noticed the warning
> even if there had been one.
I suggested we make a GUC allow_unrecoverable_indexes and default it
to false. If you want to create hash indexes you need to set it to
true or else you just get errors.
A more general solution is to emit a WAL record the first time a
non-crashsafe index is touched after a checkpoint. On a slave that
record could just mark the index invalid.
--
greg
