| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Isaac Morland <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Shay Rojansky <roji(at)roji(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Should AT TIME ZONE be volatile? |
| Date: | 2021-11-11 23:08:47 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZCcVyz2kdhjm305iR15jafV5Ron-kLMO0gkYg6b4YQQA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 5:04 PM Isaac Morland <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Wouldn't an existing index only have characters that were already part of the collation? Attempting to use one not covered by the collation I would have expected to cause an error at insert time. But definitely I agree I wouldn't feel confident about the safety of any change.
I mean it's not like we are updating the definition of
pg_utf8_verifychar() every time they define a new code point.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-11-11 23:19:12 | Re: simplifying foreign key/RI checks |
| Previous Message | Bossart, Nathan | 2021-11-11 22:57:39 | Re: archive modules |