| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ICU integration |
| Date: | 2017-02-20 23:29:07 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WzkEbMZOCKyXgtWJ-9WNKVmBBMGd9AfKoXHtnx_fOjW5uQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> Well, the release notes are a clear-enough communication for a need to
> reindex. I don't see a LOG message as similar. Don't we have other
> cases where we have to warn administrators? We can mark the indexes as
> invalid but how would we report that?
Marking all indexes as invalid would be an enormous overkill. We don't
even know for sure that the values the user has indexed happens to be
affected. In order for there to have been a bug in ICU in the first
place, the likelihood is that it only occurs in what are edge cases
for the collator.
ICU is a very popular library, used in software that I personally
interact with every day [1]. Any bugs like this should be exceptional.
They very clearly appreciate how sensitive software like Postgres is
to changes like this, which is why the versioning API exists.
[1] http://site.icu-project.org/#TOC-Who-Uses-ICU-
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2017-02-20 23:51:47 | Re: ICU integration |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2017-02-20 23:19:32 | Re: ICU integration |