Re: initdb initalization failure for collation "ja_JP"

From: Marco Atzeri <marco(dot)atzeri(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: initdb initalization failure for collation "ja_JP"
Date: 2017-06-21 16:43:31
Message-ID: 3047666b-86e5-1074-0748-b24079d0eee6@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 20/06/2017 17:37, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> Marco Atzeri <marco(dot)atzeri(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> Building on Cygwin latest 10 beta1 or head sourece,
>>> make check fails as:
>>> ...
>>> performing post-bootstrap initialization ... 2017-05-31 23:23:22.214
>>> CEST [16860] FATAL: collation "ja_JP" for encoding "EUC_JP" already exists
>
>> Hmph. Could we see the results of "locale -a | grep ja_JP" ?
>
> Despite the lack of followup from the OP, I'm pretty troubled by this
> report. It shows that the reimplementation of OS collation data import
> as pg_import_system_collations() is a whole lot more fragile than the
> original coding. We have never before trusted "locale -a" to not produce
> duplicate outputs, not since the very beginning in 414c5a2e. AFAICS,
> the current coding has also lost the protections we added very shortly
> after that in 853c1750f; and it has also lost the admittedly rather
> arbitrary, but at least deterministic, preference order for conflicting
> short aliases that was in the original initdb code.

Hi Tom,
I raised the duplication issue on the cygwin mailing list,
and one of the core developer reports that
they saw the same issues on Linux in the past.

https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2017-06/msg00253.html

> regards, tom lane

Regards
Marco

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Yugo Nagata 2017-06-21 17:03:53 Logical replication launcher never been restarted when terminated
Previous Message Yugo Nagata 2017-06-21 16:34:47 Re: Incorrect documentation about pg_stat_activity