Re: Possible index issue on 9.5 slave

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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