On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > Clearly, this is worth documenting, but I don't think we can completely > prevent the problem. There has been talk of a built-in index integrity > checking tool. That would be quite useful.
We could at least use the GNU facility for versioning collations where available, LC_IDENTIFICATION [1]. By not versioning collations, we are going against the express advice of the Unicode consortium (they also advise to do a strcmp() tie-breaker, something that I think we independently discovered in 2005, because of a bug report - this is what I like to call "the Hungarian issue". They know what our constraints are.). I recognize it's a tricky problem, because of our historic dependence on OS collations, but I think we should definitely do something. That said, I'm not volunteering for the task, because I don't have time. While I'm not sure of what the long term solution should be, it *is not* okay that we don't version collations. I think that even the best possible B-Tree check tool is a not a solution. [1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAEYLb_UTMgM2V_pP7qnuKZYmTYXoym-zNYVbwoU79=tup8h...@mail.gmail.com -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
