| 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>, Marc-Olaf Jaschke <marc-olaf(dot)jaschke(at)s24(dot)com>, Postgres-Bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Missing rows with index scan when collation is not "C" (PostgreSQL 9.5) |
| Date: | 2016-03-23 21:51:26 |
| Message-ID: | 27900.1458769886@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:
> There seems to be at least a few instances of over-optimizing
> strcoll() in the past few years. For example:
> https://github.com/bminor/glibc/commit/87701a58e291bd7ac3b407d10a829dac52c9c16e
> This bug looks like a possible candidate, given that complaints were
> about de_DE:
> https://github.com/bminor/glibc/commit/33a667def79c42e0befed1a4070798c58488170f
> Is this bug of the right vintage? Seems like it might be a bit too
> early for RHEL 6 to be affected, but I'm no expert.
It is too early. RHEL6 seems to be based off glibc 2.12, released 2010.
(By the same token, it's not got the other bug you mention ;-))
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-03-23 22:08:05 | Re: Missing rows with index scan when collation is not "C" (PostgreSQL 9.5) |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-03-23 21:34:33 | Re: Missing rows with index scan when collation is not "C" (PostgreSQL 9.5) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2016-03-23 21:58:46 | Re: PostgreSQL 9.6 behavior change with set returning (funct).* |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-03-23 21:34:33 | Re: Missing rows with index scan when collation is not "C" (PostgreSQL 9.5) |