Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> In fact, I'd go so far as to argue that you're basically sticking your
> head in the sand here. You wrote:
No, I quite agree that we have a problem. What I don't agree is that
issuing a lot of false-positive warnings is a solution. That will
just condition people to ignore the warnings, and then when their
platform really does change behavior, they're still screwed. If we
could *accurately* report collation behavioral changes, I'd be all
for that.
Rod's idea upthread is certainly way too simplistic, but could we
build a set of test cases that do detect known changes in collation
behaviors? We'd be shooting at a moving target; but even if we're
late in noticing that platform X changed the behavior of collation Y,
we could help users who run in the problem afterwards.
regards, tom lane
