| From: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeremy Schneider <schneider(at)ardentperf(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Collation version tracking for macOS |
| Date: | 2022-06-08 20:44:32 |
| Message-ID: | A0C774E0-55C0-4566-A520-C0ED7D943B97@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Jun 7, 2022, at 1:10 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> This is not the concern that I have. I agree that if we tell a user
> that collation X changed behavior and he'd better reindex his indexes
> that use collation X, but none of them actually contain any cases that
> changed behavior, that's not a "false positive" --- that's "it's cheaper
> to reindex than to try to identify whether there's a problem".
I don't see this problem as limited to indexes, though I do understand why that might be the most common place for the problem to manifest itself.
As a simple example, text[] constructed using array_agg over sorted data can be corrupted by a collation change, and reindex won't fix it.
If we extend the table-AM interface to allow query quals to be pushed down to the table-AM, we might develop table-AMs that care about sort order, too.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2022-06-08 21:13:37 | Re: [v15 beta] pg_upgrade failed if earlier executed with -c switch |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2022-06-08 20:19:52 | Re: Collation version tracking for macOS |