Re: Collation versioning - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: Collation versioning
Date
Msg-id c3324b4e-095d-8de9-c3ba-7b468bb5b0b4@2ndquadrant.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Collation versioning  (Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Collation versioning
List pgsql-hackers
On 2020-09-08 16:45, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> I usually agree with that approach, I'm just afraid that getting a consensus on
> the best way to do that will induce a lot of discussions, while this is
> probably a corner case due to general usage of hash and bloom indexes.
> 
> Anyway, in order to make progress on that topic I attach an additional POC
> commit to add the required infrastructure to handle this case in
> v29-0001-Add-a-new-amnostablecollorder-flag-in-IndexAmRou.patch.

I'm confused now.  I think we had mostly agreed on the v28 patch set, 
without this additional AM flag.  There was still some discussion on 
what the AM flag's precise semantics should be.  Do we want to work that 
out first?

Btw., I'm uneasy about the term "stable collation order".  "Stable" has 
an established meaning for sorting.  It's really about whether the AM 
uses collations at all, right?

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Force update_process_title=on in crash recovery?
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: Range checks of pg_test_fsync --secs-per-test and pg_test_timing --duration