On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 4:17 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 1:29 AM Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > > > aOn Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 12:56:51PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 5:12 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 2:31 PM Simon Riggs > > > > <simon.ri...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I attach both clean and compare versions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we want to hold this work for PG15 or commit in PG14 and backpatch > > > > it till v10 where we have made hash indexes crash-safe? I would vote > > > > for committing in PG14 and backpatch it till v10, however, I am fine > > > > if we want to commit just to PG14 or PG15. > > > > > > Backpatch makes sense to me, but since not everyone will be reading > > > this thread, I would look towards PG15 only first. We may yet pick up > > > additional corrections or additions before a backpatch, if that is > > > agreed. > > > > Yeah, I think backpatching makes sense. > > > > I checked and found that there are two commits (7c75ef5715 and > 22c5e73562) in the hash index code in PG-11 which might have impacted > what we write in the documentation. However, AFAICS, nothing proposed > in the patch would change due to those commits. Even, if we don't want > to back patch, is there any harm in committing this to PG-14?
I've reviewed those commits and the related code, so I agree. As a result, I've tweaked the wording around VACUUM slightly. Clean and compare patches attached. -- Simon Riggs http://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
doc_hash_index.v3.patch
Description: Binary data
doc_hash_index.v2-v3.patch
Description: Binary data
