Re: PITR Recovery and out-of-sync indexes
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: PITR Recovery and out-of-sync indexes |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 29475.1191436328@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: PITR Recovery and out-of-sync indexes (Brian Wipf <brian@clickspace.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: PITR Recovery and out-of-sync indexes
|
Список | pgsql-general |
Brian Wipf <brian@clickspace.com> writes: > PG tried to enforce the same LC_COLLATE and LC_CTYPE. On OS X, the > value of en_US.utf8 didn't exist, so I created a soft link to > en_US.UTF-8 in the /usr/share/locale/ directory. When I sort the > values of product_id_from_source on both systems using the locales in > this manner I get different orderings: Hmph, hadn't remembered that, but indeed it seems that en_US sorting is ASCII order, or nearly so, on Darwin. On Linux it's "dictionary order", which means case-insensitive, spaces are second class citizens, and some other strange rules. Linux: $ LANG=en_US.utf8 sort zzz ZZ538264 zz barf zzdangle zz echo ZZring $ Darwin, same data: $ LANG=en_US.UTF-8 sort zzz ZZ538264 ZZring zz barf zz echo zzdangle $ > I can happily live with rebuilding indexes if this is the only > problem I can expect to encounter, and I would still prefer PITR over > replication. The whole notion scares the daylights out of me. If you really need to use PITR between these two particular platforms, use a locale with common behavior --- C/POSIX would work. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: