| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Marc-Olaf Jaschke <marc-olaf(dot)jaschke(at)s24(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: Missing rows with index scan when collation is not "C" (PostgreSQL 9.5) |
| Date: | 2016-03-24 19:47:03 |
| Message-ID: | 15541.1458848823@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> writes:
> That's fair. I didn't really imagine that we'd want to put the tool
> into 9.5 myself. Still, I think that amcheck could have some role to
> play in managing the problem. Even the near-term availability of
> amcheck for 9.5 as a satellite project would count. That could happen
> without blocking the point release. I just don't want to go over
> anyone's head with that.
I have no objection to something like that happening.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-03-24 20:28:08 | Re: Re: Missing rows with index scan when collation is not "C" (PostgreSQL 9.5) |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-03-24 19:29:40 | Re: Re: Missing rows with index scan when collation is not "C" (PostgreSQL 9.5) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andreas Karlsson | 2016-03-24 19:52:14 | Re: NOT EXIST for PREPARE |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-03-24 19:29:40 | Re: Re: Missing rows with index scan when collation is not "C" (PostgreSQL 9.5) |