Re: Collation versioning
От | Thomas Munro |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Collation versioning |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAEepm=0EVCF_Nj5uYV5f6xH34MK1Z4mCfb+Svn1yJ_zsx5tOFw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Collation versioning (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Collation versioning
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 9:19 AM Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 16/09/2018 10:19, Thomas Munro wrote: > > 4. After creating a new database, update that row as appropriate in > > the new database (!). Or find some other way to write a new table out > > and switch it around, or something like that. That is, if you say > > CREATE DATABASE foo LC_COLLATE = 'xx_XX', COLLATION_PROVIDER = libc > > then those values somehow get written into the default pg_collation > > row in the *new* database (so at that point it's not a simple copy of > > the template database). > > I've been hatching this exact scheme since the very beginning, even > thinking about using the background session functionality to do this. > It would solve a lot of problems, but there is the question of exactly > how to do that "(!)" part. If that turns out to be impractical, I guess the "status quo" option would be to add datcollprovider to pg_database. If we switch to per-index version tracking as I proposed upthread (dropping collversion), then the where-do-we-stick-the-default-collation's-version problem goes away. -- Thomas Munro http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: