On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> "scott.marlowe" <scott.marlowe@ihs.com> writes:
> > On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Neil Conway wrote:
> >> On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 05:37:39PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> <shrug> Who's to say? We've found bugs in the btree logic recently,
> >>> too.
> >>
> >> I'd rather print a loud warning when a hash index is created, but keep
> >> the code in the tree, than just remove it entirely.
>
> > Postgresql's philosophy has always seemed to be correctness first,
> > convenience and performance second.
>
> I agree --- we either fix this bug or remove hash indexes. There's no
> third choice. However, I don't agree with killing hash indexes just
> because there *might* be more bugs in them. If we have an impractical-
> to-fix bug in front of us, then it's time for harsh measures, but
> otherwise ...
Sorry if I gave the impression earlier that we should get rid of hash
indexes because there might be more bugs. I didn't really mean it that
way. I just meant that if this one was going to be a hard fix, then that
might be one of the mitigating factors for how much work someone's going
to be willing to put into this.
If it's an easy fix then it's likely worth the effort to keep the hash
indexes around.
