| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ICU integration |
| Date: | 2017-02-20 23:51:47 |
| Message-ID: | 20170220235147.GA13919@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 03:29:07PM -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Marking all indexes as invalid would be an enormous overkill. We don't
> even know for sure that the values the user has indexed happens to be
> affected. In order for there to have been a bug in ICU in the first
> place, the likelihood is that it only occurs in what are edge cases
> for the collator.
>
> ICU is a very popular library, used in software that I personally
> interact with every day [1]. Any bugs like this should be exceptional.
> They very clearly appreciate how sensitive software like Postgres is
> to changes like this, which is why the versioning API exists.
>
> [1] http://site.icu-project.org/#TOC-Who-Uses-ICU-
So we don't have any other cases where we warn about possible corruption
except this?
Also, I will go back to my previous concern, that while I like the fact
we can detect collation changes with ICU, we don't know if ICU
collations change more often than OS collations.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2017-02-21 00:05:32 | Re: ICU integration |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2017-02-20 23:29:07 | Re: ICU integration |