Re: Let's drop two obsolete features which are bear-traps for novices

From: Eric Ridge <eebbrr(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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 04:21:07
Message-ID: CANcm6waquM2idf=SZRzp6uhQ39oV5AVVEiaOiV5cxPdHTjWkbg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 6:07 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> I don't know if/when that will happen as such, but Simon was making noises
> about writing code to treat hash indexes as unlogged automatically, which
> would more or less fix the worst risks. That's not just a special case
> for hash indexes, but any index AM that lacks WAL support, as third-party
> AMs might well do.
>

As someone writing a 3rd-party AM, literally right this moment, do you have
a link to that thread? While I follow this list fairly closely I don't
remember seeing this. I'd love to understand the thoughts around handling
extension-based AMs.

eric

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2014-11-01 04:45:44 Re: tracking commit timestamps
Previous Message Robert Haas 2014-11-01 01:25:02 Re: group locking: incomplete patch, just for discussion