| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Verite <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Crash report for some ICU-52 (debian8) COLLATE and work_mem values |
| Date: | 2017-08-18 01:13:18 |
| Message-ID: | c8e0cded-a04e-32e5-d9f4-d01191707e69@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On 8/14/17 23:55, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> pg_import_system_collations() should simply use uloc_countAvailable()
> + uloc_getAvailable, rather than ucol_countAvailable() +
> ucol_getAvailable().
It's not clear to me that this is better. Why do we need to use a
function that is clearly not the preferred API for this ("col" vs "loc")
just to get more entries? If we go down this route, then we'll be on
the hook forever to keep adding more and more predefined entries by
whatever means necessary.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2017-08-18 01:22:32 | Re: Crash report for some ICU-52 (debian8) COLLATE and work_mem values |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-08-17 22:20:16 | Re: [HACKERS] [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-08-18 01:22:07 | Re: Re: ICU collation variant keywords and pg_collation entries (Was: [BUGS] Crash report for some ICU-52 (debian8) COLLATE and work_mem values) |
| Previous Message | Andrew Gierth | 2017-08-18 00:43:14 | Re: Inadequate infrastructure for NextValueExpr |