Re: Missing rows with index scan when collation is not "C" (PostgreSQL 9.5)
От | Peter Geoghegan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Missing rows with index scan when collation is not "C" (PostgreSQL 9.5) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAM3SWZRKdfKhBLRXzQtMK2WACC2oo_Lq=FWAup4-xvjxkUoEbA@mail.gmail.com 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 |
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 5:26 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >> If that is the case, I'd argue that's a glibc problem, not our >> problem. Of course, we could provide an option to disable abbreviated >> keys for the benefit of people who need to work around buggy libc >> implementations. > > That would be an easy patch to write. We'd simply have a test within > bttextsortsupport() that had systems that disabled abbreviated keys > for text PG_RETURN_VOID(). Actually, to be more precise we'd put that > next to the Windows code within varstr_sortsupport() (the function is > called btsortsupport_worker in 9.5). It would look at a GUC, I > suppose. Actually, I suppose it isn't quite that simple, because abbreviated keys did not introduce the use of strxfrm() by Postgres. That happened much sooner. I guess we'd have to think about convert_string_datum(), too. Maybe we can write a test-case that lets check_strxfrm_bug() detect this issue, which would be ideal. But, again, I need to see what's going on with strxfrm() on affected systems before I can do anything. Don't have one of my own close at hand. -- Peter Geoghegan
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: