Re: GSoC on WAL-logging hash indexes

Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu> writes:
> But imnsho doing nothing is a bad idea. We should have long ago either
> added WAL logging or removed the index type. We shouldn't have left a
> foot-gun that large lying around for so long.

We can't remove the hash index type, nor move it to an extension,
because it is the operator classes for the built-in hash index AM
that tell the planner and executor how to do hashing for arbitrary
datatypes.  And we certainly do not want to give up hashing-based
query plans, whatever you may think of hash indexes.

We really oughta fix the WAL situation, not just band-aid around it.
        regards, tom lane