[HACKERS] Possible index issue on 9.5 slave

2014-06-18 Thread Ian Barwick
Hi I've just run into an index issue on 9.5 HEAD on a slave (master and slave both compiled from 66802246e22d51858cd543877fcfddf24e6812f2); details below (I have only found one index on the slave where the issue occurs so far). The setup is admittedly slightly unusual; master is OS X 10.7.5,

Re: [HACKERS] Possible index issue on 9.5 slave

2014-06-18 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Ian Barwick i...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: I've just run into an index issue on 9.5 HEAD on a slave (master and slave both compiled from 66802246e22d51858cd543877fcfddf24e6812f2); details below (I have only found one index on the slave where the issue occurs so

Re: [HACKERS] Possible index issue on 9.5 slave

2014-06-18 Thread Ian Barwick
On 19/06/14 11:58, Peter Geoghegan wrote: On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Ian Barwick i...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: I've just run into an index issue on 9.5 HEAD on a slave (master and slave both compiled from 66802246e22d51858cd543877fcfddf24e6812f2); details below (I have only found one index

Re: [HACKERS] Possible index issue on 9.5 slave

2014-06-18 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 8:09 PM, Ian Barwick i...@2ndquadrant.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,

Re: [HACKERS] Possible index issue on 9.5 slave

2014-06-18 Thread Ian Barwick
On 19/06/14 12:30, Peter Geoghegan wrote: On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 8:09 PM, Ian Barwick i...@2ndquadrant.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

Re: [HACKERS] Possible index issue on 9.5 slave

2014-06-18 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com writes: On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 8:09 PM, Ian Barwick i...@2ndquadrant.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

Re: [HACKERS] Possible index issue on 9.5 slave

2014-06-18 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Still, it should be possible to determine if that's the problem using btreecheck. Does btreecheck attempt to verify that the sort ordering of the index matches the comparison behavior of the datatype? That would (in general)

Re: [HACKERS] Possible index issue on 9.5 slave

2014-06-18 Thread Ian Barwick
On 19/06/14 12:35, Tom Lane wrote: Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com writes: On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 8:09 PM, Ian Barwick i...@2ndquadrant.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