On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 6:43 PM Michael Paquier <mich...@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
