Re: Missing rows with index scan when collation is not "C" (PostgreSQL 9.5)
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Missing rows with index scan when collation is not "C" (PostgreSQL 9.5) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 19477.1458619852@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Missing rows with index scan when collation is not "C" (PostgreSQL 9.5) (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Missing rows with index scan when collation is not "C"
(PostgreSQL 9.5)
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> writes: > At one point, Robert wrote a small self-contained tool to show OS > strxfrm() blobs: > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmoaOCyQpo8HK9yr6VTuyknWWvqgo7JeXi2kb=gpNveKR+g@mail.gmail.com > It would be great if you showed us the output for your test case > strings, both on an affected and on an unaffected system. On RHEL6, I get ./strxfrm-binary de_DE.UTF-8 'eai' 'e aÃ' "eai" -> 100c140108080801020202 (11 bytes) "e aÃ" -> 100c140108080901020202010235 (14 bytes) This seems a bit problematic, because these string sort in the other order ("e aÃ" before "eai") according to sort(1) as well as Postgres sorting code. It's possible I've copied-and-pasted these multibyte characters wrong. But if I haven't, this says that the strxfrm-based optimization is unusably broken on a very large fraction of reasonably-modern installations. Quite aside from casting aspersions on the glibc guys, how did we fail to notice this in our own testing? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: