| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Marc-Olaf Jaschke <marc-olaf(dot)jaschke(at)s24(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: Missing rows with index scan when collation is not "C" (PostgreSQL 9.5) |
| Date: | 2016-03-24 14:14:06 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaRTWGYYXP-LhOv91DyS5xrjR55uo9wNG7FiNjqP1j+sQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> Even if we can't sneak amcheck into 9.5, if we can show that it detects the
> problem, then just being able to direct people to "get amcheck from 9.6 if
> you want to check if the reindex is necessary" would still be a strong
> improvement over nothing.
I agree that back-patching amcheck into 9.5 would be unprecedented,
but it wouldn't be crazy: shipping an extra contrib module with no
additional dependencies shouldn't break anything for existing users.
However, the fact that the patch is not "Ready for Committer" at this
point means that it is not going to be available in time for next
week's maintenance releases, or very possibly, for 9.6. Time grows
very short.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bernd Helmle | 2016-03-24 14:17:27 | Re: Re: Missing rows with index scan when collation is not "C" (PostgreSQL 9.5) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-03-24 14:03:52 | Re: BUG #14042: bug, PostgreSQL not cleanup temp table info after crash. |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-03-24 14:17:23 | Re: [WIP] Effective storage of duplicates in B-tree index. |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-03-24 14:08:48 | Re: Small patch: fix code duplication in heapam.c |