Re: Collations and Replication; Next Steps - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: Collations and Replication; Next Steps
Date
Msg-id CAM3SWZQm-7F95rp30fFY=tMMy+NC96Z3FfN=yVHsabez_-TpSA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Collations and Replication; Next Steps  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> I also wrote PostGIS dependent libraries, not PostGIS itself.  If you
> are comparing RHEL 5 and 6, as you wrote elsewhere, then some of those
> will most likely be different.  (Heck, glibc could be different.  Is
> glibc never allowed to fix insufficiencies in its floating-point
> implementation, for example?)


The operator class author has a responsibility to make sure that
doesn't happen. If he or she should fail, then it's a bug, and
possibly a failure of imagination on their part. This is the only way
of thinking about it that makes sense. If you want to use a library
feature in your opclass B-Tree support function 1, then you'd better
be damned sure that it implies immutability insofar as that's
possible. Sure, it's also possible that your users could be the victim
on an unfortunate upstream bug that you couldn't reasonably predict,
but when is that not true?

In general, I am totally unconvinced by this line of argument. It
implies that everyone has to be an expert on everything just to use
Postgres.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: Collations and Replication; Next Steps
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [Windows,PATCH] Use faster, higher precision timer API