| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Let's drop two obsolete features which are bear-traps for novices |
| Date: | 2014-11-01 18:56:35 |
| Message-ID: | 54552CE3.2020509@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/01/2014 02:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> A REINDEX is imo unlikely to be acceptable. It takes long (why would you
>> bother on a small table?) and locks the relation/indexes.
> I think the goalposts just took a vacation to Acapulco.
>
> What exactly do you think is going to make a crashed unlogged index valid
> again without a REINDEX? Certainly the people who are currently using
> hash indexes in the way Andrew describes are expecting to have to REINDEX
> them after a crash.
>
>
That's certainly true. They were warned of the risks and found them
acceptable.
The real question here is whether the table should continue to be usable
in a degraded state until it's reindexed.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-11-01 19:00:03 | Re: Let's drop two obsolete features which are bear-traps for novices |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-11-01 18:52:34 | Re: Let's drop two obsolete features which are bear-traps for novices |