Re: Alpha4 release blockers (was Re: wrapping up this CommitFest)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Alpha4 release blockers (was Re: wrapping up this CommitFest)
Date: 2011-03-01 21:38:26
Message-ID: 27329.1299015506@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"David E. Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> writes:
> On Mar 1, 2011, at 1:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The question is what collation property the
>> citext type needs to have, and how we get it to have that setting during
>> an upgrade from 9.0. See
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/11548.1297983024@sss.pgh.pa.us

> Ah, I remember now. That lead to this:

> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-02/msg01824.php

> So it looks like what Peter said about updating the catalog is what needs to be done, and is simple, yes? But then pg_dump needs more collation-juju. Am I right?

Yeah, the real problem in my mind is not so much citext as whether the
current representation of a type's collation property is sane in the
first place. Once we've thrashed that out, I'll be happy with a simple
"UPDATE pg_type" kluge in the citext upgrade script. Doing anything
cleaner-looking than that is a future project (and might never happen,
seeing that we've never felt a need for ALTER TYPE commands for other
properties of a basic type).

So really I guess the release-blocker issue is
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/27152.1299015062@sss.pgh.pa.us

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Maxim Boguk 2011-03-01 21:44:11 Re: [HACKERS] Re: PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag was incorrectly set happend during repeatable vacuum
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-03-01 21:31:02 Re: ALTER TYPE COLLATABLE?