On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 9:59 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 4:18 AM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 11:13 AM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 4:58 AM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Here are some problems to think about:
> > > >
> > > > * We'd need to track dependencies on the default collation once we
> > > > have versioning for that [...]
> >
> > Another problem I just thought about is how to avoid discrepancy of
> > collation version for indexes on shared objects, such as
> > pg_database_datname_index.
>
> I didn't look closely at the code, but I think when "name" recently
> became collation-aware (commit 586b98fd), it switched to using
> C_COLLATION_OID as its typcollation, and "C" doesn't need versioning,
> so I think it would only be a problem if there are shared catalogs
> that have "name" columns that have a non-type-default collation.
> There are none of those, and you can't create them, right? If there
> were, if we take this patch set to its logical conclusion, we'd also
> need pg_shdepend.refobjversion, but we don't need it AFAICS.
That's entirely correct, I should have checked that.
