From: | Ian Barwick <ian(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Possible index issue on 9.5 slave |
Date: | 2014-06-19 03:34:31 |
Message-ID: | 53A25A47.7050109@2ndquadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 19/06/14 12:30, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 8:09 PM, Ian Barwick <ian(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> Interesting, I'll take a look later.
>
> I'm pretty suspicious of incompatibilities that may exist between the
> two sets of OS collations involved here. We aren't very clear on the
> extent to which what you're doing is supported, but it's certainly the
> case that bttextcmp()/varstr_cmp()/strcoll() return values must be
> immutable between the two systems. Still, it should be possible to
> determine if that's the problem using btreecheck.
>
> Do you get perfectly consistent answers between the two when you ORDER BY login?
Hmm, nope, different sort order.
Regards
Ian Barwick
--
Ian Barwick http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-06-19 03:35:15 | Re: Possible index issue on 9.5 slave |
Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2014-06-19 03:31:28 | Re: [bug fix] Memory leak in dblink |