| From: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: REINDEX backend filtering |
| Date: | 2021-03-15 17:13:55 |
| Message-ID: | 074D5DFD-4D47-4A84-93A5-C2DC8935E6E9@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Mar 15, 2021, at 9:52 AM, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> But there are also the tests in collate.icu.utf8.out which will fake outdated
> collations (that's the original tests for the collation tracking patches) and
> then check that outdated indexes are reindexed with both REINDEX and REINDEX
> (OUDATED).
>
> So I think that all cases are covered. Do you want to have more test cases?
I thought that just checked cases where a bogus 'not a version' was put into pg_catalog.pg_depend. I'm talking about having a collation provider who returns a different version string and has genuinely different collation rules between versions, thereby breaking the index until it is updated. Is that being tested?
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2021-03-15 17:18:57 | Re: Parser Hook |
| Previous Message | Bossart, Nathan | 2021-03-15 17:09:00 | Re: documentation fix for SET ROLE |