| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | rihad <rihad(at)mail(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Changing collate & ctype for an existing database |
| Date: | 2017-07-12 17:31:23 |
| Message-ID: | 19909.1499880683@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
rihad <rihad(at)mail(dot)ru> writes:
> On 07/12/2017 01:54 PM, Albe Laurenz wrote:
>> As you see, your index is still sorted according to the C collation
>> and scanning it returns wrong results.
> This ordering issue can certainly be classified as an inconsistency, but
> nothing to lose sleep over. Is this all that is normally meant when
> saying "index corruption"?
Laurenz neglected to point out that if the index isn't sorted the way that
the system assumes it is, then searches may fail to find values that are
present (due to descending into the wrong subtree), and by the same token
insertions may fail to enforce uniqueness. That's pretty corrupt in
my book.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | rihad | 2017-07-12 17:41:38 | Re: Changing collate & ctype for an existing database |
| Previous Message | rihad | 2017-07-12 16:56:13 | Re: Changing collate & ctype for an existing database |