From: | Paul Foerster <paul(dot)foerster(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-general list <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: glibc updarte 2.31 to 2.38 |
Date: | 2024-09-19 18:07:55 |
Message-ID: | 10C568C1-5985-4434-9A73-9ED6C5B64FB1@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hi Joe,
> On 19 Sep 2024, at 19:07, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Every glibc major version change potentially impacts the sorting of some strings, which would require reindexing. Whether your actual data trips into any of these changes is another matter.
>
> You could check by doing something equivalent to this on every collatable column with an index built on it, in every table:
>
> 8<-----------
> WITH t(s) AS (SELECT <collatable_col> FROM <some_table> ORDER BY 1)
> SELECT md5(string_agg(t.s, NULL)) FROM t;
> 8<-----------
>
> Check the before and after glibc upgrade result -- if it is the same, you are good to go. If not, rebuild the index before *any* DML is done to the table.
I like the neatness of this one. I think about how to implement this on hundreds of of databases with hundreds of columns. That'll be a challenge, but at least it's a start.
Thanks very much for this one.
Cheers,
Paul
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joe Conway | 2024-09-19 18:09:38 | Re: glibc updarte 2.31 to 2.38 |
Previous Message | Paul Foerster | 2024-09-19 17:56:20 | Re: glibc updarte 2.31 to 2.38 |