Re: [18] Policy on IMMUTABLE functions and Unicode updates
| От | Jeremy Schneider |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [18] Policy on IMMUTABLE functions and Unicode updates |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CA+fnDAa6tNgj_C3mqPgyURPBQprQwwho4Km4xVeQ+SSaqrg5Ow@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [18] Policy on IMMUTABLE functions and Unicode updates (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [18] Policy on IMMUTABLE functions and Unicode updates
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 12:47 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 1:45 PM Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote:
> There's a qualitative difference between a collation update which can
> break your PKs and FKs, and a ctype update which definitely will not.
I don't think that's true. All you need is a unique index on UPPER(somecol).
I doubt it’s common to have unique on upper()
But non-unique indexes for case insensitive searches will be more common. Historically this is the most common way people did case insensitive on oracle.
Changing ctype would mean these queries can return wrong results
The impact would be similar to the critical problem TripAdvisor hit in 2014 with their read replicas, in the Postgres email thread I linked above
-Jeremy
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: