On 2019-07-01 22:46, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2019-Jul-02, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 8:34 AM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Even if that's just me being delusional, I'd still prefer Alvaro's
>>> approach to have distinct switches for each collation system.
>>
>> Makes sense. But why use the name "glibc" in the code and user
>> interface? The name of the collation provider in PostgreSQL is "libc"
>> (for example in the CREATE COLLATION command), and the problem applies
>> no matter who makes your libc.
>
> Makes sense. "If your libc is glibc and you go across an upgrade over
> version X, please use --include-rule=libc-collation"
I think it might be better to put the logic of what indexes are
collation affected etc. into the backend REINDEX command. We are likely
to enhance the collation version and dependency tracking over time,
possibly soon, possibly multiple times, and it would be very cumbersome
to have to keep updating reindexdb with this. Moreover, since for
performance you likely want to reindex by table, implementing a logic of
"reindex all collation-affected indexes on this table" would be much
easier to do in the backend.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
