On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 7:21 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> writes: > > 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? > > Presumably, any patch for pre-10 would look completely different > as the hash index code was quite different. I can't see that it's > worth the development time to do something there, especially if > you lack an easy way to test. >
The fix might or might not be different, but lack of test is definitely the reason for not pursuing it. I have pushed the fix and back-patched it till 10. Thanks for the input. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
