Re: Missing rows with index scan when collation is not "C" (PostgreSQL 9.5) - Mailing list pgsql-bugs

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Missing rows with index scan when collation is not "C" (PostgreSQL 9.5)
Date
Msg-id 19682.1458689175@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Missing rows with index scan when collation is not "C" (PostgreSQL 9.5)  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>)
Responses Re: Missing rows with index scan when collation is not "C" (PostgreSQL 9.5)  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>)
List pgsql-bugs
Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> writes:
> I now think that we have this backwards: This isn't a bug in glibc's
> strxfrm(); it's a bug in glibc's strcoll().

FWIW, the test program I just posted includes checks to see if the two
cases produce self-consistent sort orders.  So far I've seen no evidence
that they don't; that is, strcoll() produces a consistent sort order,
and strxfrm() produces a consistent sort order, but not the same one.
That being the case, arguing about which one is wrong seems a bit
academic, not to mention well above my pay grade so far as the theoretical
behavior of locale-specific sort ordering is concerned.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-bugs by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Missing rows with index scan when collation is not "C" (PostgreSQL 9.5)
Next
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: Missing rows with index scan when collation is not "C" (PostgreSQL 9.5)