Re: range test for hash index?
Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
From: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: Paul A Jungwirth <pj@illuminatedcomputing.com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@iki.fi>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2019-09-26T22:33:33Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 11:24 PM Paul A Jungwirth >> <pj@illuminatedcomputing.com> wrote: >> > >> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 5:28 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@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? 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. regards -- Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Commits
-
Fix oversight in commit 4429f6a9e3e12bb4af6e3677fbc78cd80f160252.
- 668918ff1378 9.4.25 landed
- 8364ef925c59 9.5.20 landed
- 89c98c6ce36a 9.6.16 landed
- d395b1e901c0 10.11 landed
- 84ced048d18d 11.6 landed
- fb341a7db9ba 12.0 landed
- bb0e3ce8eb07 13.0 landed
-
Support range data types.
- 4429f6a9e3e1 9.2.0 cited