On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 6:43 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 11:21:34AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > The files in question correspond to
> >
> > hash_i4_index
> > hash_name_index
> > hash_txt_index
>
> The hash index code has been largely refactored in v10, so I would
> imagine that you can see the problem as well there.
>
> [... digging digging ...]
>
> And indeed I can see the problem in 10 as well with my own pg_checksums,
> and I can see hash_f8_index with a problem on top of what Peter has
> reported.
>
AFAICS, this problem exists in 9.6 and prior branches as well,
although, I can't test it. I am not sure whether we need to backpatch
this beyond 10 (where hash indexes are WAL logged) as prior to that
hash-indexes are anyway not-reliable. What's your opinion?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com