On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 4:03 AM Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 09:07:13AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > >On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 9:30 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 11:24 PM Paul A Jungwirth > >> <p...@illuminatedcomputing.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 5:28 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > > I don't see this function on the master branch. Is this function name > >> > > correct? Are you looking at some different branch? > >> > > >> > Sorry about that! You're right, I was on my multirange branch. But I > >> > see the same thing on latest master (but calling hash_range instead of > >> > hash_range_internal). > >> > > >> > >> No problem, attached is a patch with a proposed commit message. I > >> will wait for a few days to see if Heikki/Jeff or anyone else responds > >> back, otherwise will commit and backpatch this early next week. > >> > > > >Today, while I was trying to backpatch, I realized that hash indexes > >were not WAL-logged before 10 and they give warning "WARNING: hash > >indexes are not WAL-logged and their use is discouraged". However, > >this test has nothing to do with the durability of hash-indexes, so I > >think we can safely backpatch, but still, I thought it is better to > >check if anybody thinks that is not a good idea. In back-branches, > >we are already using hash-index in regression tests in some cases like > >enum.sql, macaddr.sql, etc., so adding for one more genuine case > >should be fine. OTOH, we can back-patch till 10, but the drawback is > >the tests will be inconsistent across branches. Does anyone think it > >is not a good idea to backpatch this till 9.4? > > > > By "inconsistent" you mean that pre-10 versions will have different > expected output than versions with WAL-logged hash indexes? >
Yes. > I don't see > why that would be a reason not to backpatch to all supported versions, > considering we already have the same difference for other test suites. > Yeah, I also think so. I will do this today. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
