Thread: pgsql: Update text that stated GiST indexes aren't WAL-logged.

Log Message:
-----------
Update text that stated GiST indexes aren't WAL-logged.

Modified Files:
--------------
    pgsql/doc/src/sgml:
        backup.sgml (r2.65 -> r2.66)
        (http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/backup.sgml.diff?r1=2.65&r2=2.66)

Don't forget the line in the GiST docs that says basically that WAL
logging is a SMOP:

http://developer.postgresql.org/docs/postgres/limitations.html

Chris

Tom Lane wrote:
> Log Message:
> -----------
> Update text that stated GiST indexes aren't WAL-logged.
>
> Modified Files:
> --------------
>     pgsql/doc/src/sgml:
>         backup.sgml (r2.65 -> r2.66)
>         (http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/backup.sgml.diff?r1=2.65&r2=2.66)
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:
> Don't forget the line in the GiST docs that says basically that WAL
> logging is a SMOP:
> http://developer.postgresql.org/docs/postgres/limitations.html

Ah, I did forget that one.  Thanks.

            regards, tom lane

You could also mention under limitations that it's not NULL-safe perhaps.

Chris


Tom Lane wrote:
> Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:
>
>>Don't forget the line in the GiST docs that says basically that WAL
>>logging is a SMOP:
>>http://developer.postgresql.org/docs/postgres/limitations.html
>
>
> Ah, I did forget that one.  Thanks.
>
>             regards, tom lane