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?
--
Thom