Re: Bogus collation version recording in recordMultipleDependencies

From: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Bogus collation version recording in recordMultipleDependencies
Date: 2021-04-15 10:56:47
Message-ID: 20210415105647.lqd3kjdic6ixr4dq@nol
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 01:18:07PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> One question here is whether it's correct that the domain's dependency
> on collation "aa_DJ" is unversioned. Maybe that's intentional, but it
> seems worth asking.

This is intentional I think, we should record collation version only for object
that might break if the collation version is updated. So creating an index on
that domain would record the collation version.

> Anyway, there are two pretty obvious bugs in the dependencies for the
> domain's CHECK constraint: the version for collation mycoll leaks
> into the entry for function foo, and an entirely useless (because
> unversioned) dependency is recorded on the default collation.

Agreed.

> (To be clear: 0002 passes check-world as-is, while 0001 is not
> committable without some regression-test fiddling.)

I'm probably missing something obvious but both 0001 and 0002 pass check-world
for me, on a glibc box and --with-icu.

> Thoughts?

I think this is an open item, so I added one for now.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Japin Li 2021-04-15 11:00:40 Re: Truncate in synchronous logical replication failed
Previous Message Japin Li 2021-04-15 10:30:14 Forget close an open relation in ReorderBufferProcessTXN()