Re: Wrong sorting on docker image

2021-10-16 Thread Thomas Munro
On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 4:42 AM Tom Lane wrote: > Speaking of ICU, if you are using an ICU-enabled Postgres build, > maybe you could find an ICU collation that acts the way you want. > This wouldn't be a perfect solution, because we don't yet have > the ability to set an ICU collation as a

Re: "two time periods with only an endpoint in common do not overlap" ???

2021-10-16 Thread Adrian Klaver
On 10/15/21 21:54, Ron wrote: There is no straight time range, you would have to use tsrange or tstzrange. The principle still holds though you can make ranges overlap or not depending on '[)' or '[]'. OP refers to the OVERLAP operator (is it an operator), not the tsrange() function.

Re: Wrong sorting on docker image

2021-10-16 Thread Tom Lane
Oleksandr Voytsekhovskyy writes: > Starting from version 12.0 official docker image switched from Debian-stretch > to Debian-bullseye and from that point we have a huge pain with sorting > issues on Russian collation. Yeah, Debian versions after stretch adopted the significant glibc locale

Re: Wrong sorting on docker image

2021-10-16 Thread Peter J. Holzer
On 2021-10-16 13:50:31 +0300, Oleksandr Voytsekhovskyy wrote: > Starting from version 12.0 official docker image switched from Debian-stretch > to Debian-bullseye and from that point we have a huge pain with sorting issues > on Russian collation. [...] > Issue: > > postgres=# SELECT * FROM

Wrong sorting on docker image

2021-10-16 Thread Oleksandr Voytsekhovskyy
Greetings Starting from version 12.0 official docker image switched from Debian-stretch to Debian-bullseye and from that point we have a huge pain with sorting issues on Russian collation. Dockerfile: FROM postgres:14 RUN apt-get clean && apt-get update && apt-get install -y locales RUN

Re: "two time periods with only an endpoint in common do not overlap" ???

2021-10-16 Thread Gavin Flower
On 16/10/21 18:41, David G. Johnston wrote: On Friday, October 15, 2021, Ron wrote: Prima facie, if you were told "numbers in the range 0-10", would you really think, "ah, they *really* mean 0 through 9"? I would indeed default to both endpoints of the range being inclusive.  I