On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 11:44:22AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 2:30 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> > In the case of hash indexes, because we still have to have the hash
> > opclasses in core, there's no way that it could be pushed out as an
> > extension module even if we otherwise had full support for AMs as
> > extensions. So what I hear you proposing is "let's break this so
> > thoroughly that it *can't* be fixed". I'm not on board with that.
> > I think the WARNING will do just fine to discourage novices who are
> > not familiar with the state of the hash AM. In the meantime, we
> > could push forward with the idea of making hash indexes automatically
> > unlogged, so that recovering from a crash wouldn't be quite so messy/
> > dangerous.
> >
> There is as well another way: finally support WAL-logging for hash indexes.
+1
Ken