Re: Possible index issue on 9.5 slave - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: Possible index issue on 9.5 slave
Date
Msg-id CAM3SWZSY6X6o63q-ytW0TS==+=GGJhHsTc1KTobw5txFvTZPeQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Possible index issue on 9.5 slave  (Ian Barwick <ian@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Possible index issue on 9.5 slave  (Ian Barwick <ian@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: Possible index issue on 9.5 slave  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 8:09 PM, Ian Barwick <ian@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Interesting, I'll take a look later.

I'm pretty suspicious of incompatibilities that may exist between the
two sets of OS collations involved here. We aren't very clear on the
extent to which what you're doing is supported, but it's certainly the
case that bttextcmp()/varstr_cmp()/strcoll() return values must be
immutable between the two systems. Still, it should be possible to
determine if that's the problem using btreecheck.

Do you get perfectly consistent answers between the two when you ORDER BY login?

-- 
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [bug fix] Memory leak in dblink
Next
From: Joe Conway
Date:
Subject: Re: [bug fix] Memory leak in dblink