Re: Possible index issue on 9.5 slave

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
To: Ian Barwick <ian(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Possible index issue on 9.5 slave
Date: 2014-06-19 03:30:07
Message-ID: CAM3SWZSY6X6o63q-ytW0TS==+=GGJhHsTc1KTobw5txFvTZPeQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 8:09 PM, Ian Barwick <ian(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Interesting, I'll take a look later.

I'm pretty suspicious of incompatibilities that may exist between the
two sets of OS collations involved here. We aren't very clear on the
extent to which what you're doing is supported, but it's certainly the
case that bttextcmp()/varstr_cmp()/strcoll() return values must be
immutable between the two systems. Still, it should be possible to
determine if that's the problem using btreecheck.

Do you get perfectly consistent answers between the two when you ORDER BY login?

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joe Conway 2014-06-19 03:31:28 Re: [bug fix] Memory leak in dblink
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-06-19 03:19:57 Re: [bug fix] Memory leak in dblink