| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Douglas Doole <dougdoole(at)gmail(dot)com>, Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Collation versioning |
| Date: | 2019-12-12 05:09:44 |
| Message-ID: | CA+hUKGJCuC_z9H7DPgDSfGzDrn7M8B8SUjVMGZnFFDAu4jP_Dg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 5:00 PM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Then, as a special case, there is the collation of the actual indexed
> value, because that will implicitly be used as input to the btree ops
> that would be collation sensitive. [...]
Erm, but I shouldn't have to reindex my hash indexes (at least not
until someone invents collation-based equality and therefore
necessarily also collation-based hashing). How can we exclude that?
amcanorder seems somehow right but also wrong.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-12-12 05:23:42 | Re: Let people set host(no)ssl settings from initdb |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2019-12-12 04:57:51 | Re: non-exclusive backup cleanup is mildly broken |