| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Douglas Doole <dougdoole(at)gmail(dot)com>, Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Collation versioning |
| Date: | 2019-12-12 06:12:25 |
| Message-ID: | CA+hUKGKMsPc6+KFMC6sjoh0rkznX9=aMLMpUV4Kny01=8=wpMg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 6:32 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Erm, but I shouldn't have to reindex my hash indexes (at least not
> > until someone invents collation-based equality and therefore
> > necessarily also collation-based hashing). How can we exclude that?
>
> Um, we already invented that with nondeterministic collations, no?
Urghlgh, right, thanks, somehow I missed/forgot that that stuff
already works for hashing (neat). So we do need to track collation
version dependencies for hash indexes, but only for non-deterministic
collations. I wonder how best to code that.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Khandekar | 2019-12-12 06:22:47 | Re: logical decoding : exceeded maxAllocatedDescs for .spill files |
| Previous Message | Amit Khandekar | 2019-12-12 06:04:10 | Re: logical decoding : exceeded maxAllocatedDescs for .spill files |