On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 09:07:13AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 9:30 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 11:24 PM Paul A Jungwirth
>> <pj@illuminatedcomputing.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 5:28 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > I don't see this function on the master branch. Is this function name
>> > > correct? Are you looking at some different branch?
>> >
>> > Sorry about that! You're right, I was on my multirange branch. But I
>> > see the same thing on latest master (but calling hash_range instead of
>> > hash_range_internal).
>> >
>>
>> No problem, attached is a patch with a proposed commit message. I
>> will wait for a few days to see if Heikki/Jeff or anyone else responds
>> back, otherwise will commit and backpatch this early next week.
>>
>
>Today, while I was trying to backpatch, I realized that hash indexes
>were not WAL-logged before 10 and they give warning "WARNING: hash
>indexes are not WAL-logged and their use is discouraged". However,
>this test has nothing to do with the durability of hash-indexes, so I
>think we can safely backpatch, but still, I thought it is better to
>check if anybody thinks that is not a good idea. In back-branches,
>we are already using hash-index in regression tests in some cases like
>enum.sql, macaddr.sql, etc., so adding for one more genuine case
>should be fine. OTOH, we can back-patch till 10, but the drawback is
>the tests will be inconsistent across branches. Does anyone think it
>is not a good idea to backpatch this till 9.4?
>
By "inconsistent" you mean that pre-10 versions will have different
expected output than versions with WAL-logged hash indexes? I don't see
why that would be a reason not to backpatch to all supported versions,
considering we already have the same difference for other test suites.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services