Re: Collation versioning - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas Munro
Subject Re: Collation versioning
Date
Msg-id CA+hUKGJCuC_z9H7DPgDSfGzDrn7M8B8SUjVMGZnFFDAu4jP_Dg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Collation versioning  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Collation versioning  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 5:00 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
> Then, as a special case, there is the collation of the actual indexed
> value, because that will implicitly be used as input to the btree ops
> that would be collation sensitive.  [...]

Erm, but I shouldn't have to reindex my hash indexes (at least not
until someone invents collation-based equality and therefore
necessarily also collation-based hashing).  How can we exclude that?
amcanorder seems somehow right but also wrong.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Kyotaro Horiguchi
Date:
Subject: Re: non-exclusive backup cleanup is mildly broken
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Let people set host(no)ssl settings from initdb