On 2014-10-28 20:17:57 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 28 October 2014 17:47, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On 2014-10-28 17:45:36 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: > >> I'd like to avoid all of the pain by making persistent AMs that are > >> recoverable after a crash, rather than during crash recovery. > > > > Besides the actual difficulities of supporting this, imo not being > > available on HS and directly after a failover essentially makes them > > next to useless. > > Broken WAL implementations are worse than useless. > > I'm saying we should work on how to fix broken indexes first, before > we allow a crop of new code that might cause them.
Why do we presume all of them will be that buggy? And why is that different for nbtree, gin, gist? And how is any form of automated invalidation changing anything fundamentally? To me this is a pretty independent issue. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
