|From:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|To:||Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>|
|Subject:||Re: collations in shared catalogs?|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> writes:
> So while helping someone with an unrelated issue, I did a quick query to
> look for collation-dependent indexes, and was rather shocked to find
> that not only are there two such in the system catalogs, both set to
> "default" collation, but that one of them is in a _shared_ catalog
> How did that happen? And how could it possibly work?
It probably doesn't, and the reason nobody has noticed is that the
security label stuff has fewer users than I have fingers (and those
people aren't using provider names that would cause anything interesting
The most obvious fix is to change "provider" to a NAME column.
What was the other case? We might want to add a regression test to
check for collation-dependent system indexes ...
regards, tom lane
|Next Message||Tom Lane||2015-02-25 17:12:53||Re: PostgreSQL on z/OS UNIX?|
|Previous Message||Heikki Linnakangas||2015-02-25 17:08:29||Re: contrib/fuzzystrmatch/dmetaphone.c license|