| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Manuel Rigger <rigger(dot)manuel(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Unexpected "cache lookup failed for collation 0" failure |
| Date: | 2019-11-14 04:09:12 |
| Message-ID: | 21560.1573704552@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 03:56:11PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Looks like a simple oversight --- when bpcharne() was made
>> collation-sensitive, it should have grown a check_collation_set()
>> call, but somehow that got left out. Fixed.
> Wouldn't it be better to add a test case for that?
Didn't see the point particularly; we're not any more likely to
break this function than any other collation-dependent function.
The real question IMO is whether Peter missed any *other* places.
I dug through varlena.c and varchar.c and confirmed that every
call of PG_GET_COLLATION leads to a collation-is-not-zero test
(after this fix), but I didn't try to search the whole backend.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-11-14 08:08:55 | Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY unexpectedly fails |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-11-14 04:03:42 | Re: Unexpected "cache lookup failed for collation 0" failure |