On 6/12/15 5:00 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 18 October 2014 at 15:36, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 02:36:55PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 12:56:52PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> David G Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> The question is whether we explain the implications of not being WAL-logged
>>>>> in an error message or simply state the fact and let the documentation
>>>>> explain the hazards - basically just output:
>>>>> "hash indexes are not WAL-logged and their use is discouraged"
>>>>
>>>> +1. The warning message is not the place to be trying to explain all the
>>>> details.
>>>
>>> OK, updated patch attached.
>>
>> Patch applied.
>
> I only just noticed this item when I read the release notes. Should
> we bother warning when used on an unlogged table?
Not really; but I think the bigger question at this point is if we want
to change it this late in the game.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com