| 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 02:41:43 |
| Message-ID: | 28182.1458700903@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:
> My concern was not merely "academic" (i.e. it was not limited in scope
> to things that don't make B-Tree indexes corrupt). Pretty sure that we
> need to start thinking of this as a problem with strcoll() that
> strxfrm() does not have for more fundamental reasons, because
> strcoll() says that the first string in the de_DE sorted list is
> *greater* than the third string.
[ squint... ] I was looking specifically for that sort of misbehavior
in my test program, and I haven't seen it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Noah Misch | 2016-03-23 02:44:45 | Re: Missing rows with index scan when collation is not "C" (PostgreSQL 9.5) |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-03-23 02:33:49 | Re: Missing rows with index scan when collation is not "C" (PostgreSQL 9.5) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Noah Misch | 2016-03-23 02:44:45 | Re: Missing rows with index scan when collation is not "C" (PostgreSQL 9.5) |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-03-23 02:33:49 | Re: Missing rows with index scan when collation is not "C" (PostgreSQL 9.5) |