Julien Rouhaud wrote: > > I think you'd be better off to define and document this as "reindex > > only collation-sensitive indexes", without any particular reference > > to a reason why somebody might want to do that. > > We should still document that indexes based on ICU would be exluded?
But why exclude them? As a data point, in the last 5 years, the en_US collation in ICU had 7 different versions (across 11 major versions of ICU): ICU Unicode en_US 54.1 7.0 137.56 55.1 7.0 153.56 56.1 8.0 153.64 57.1 8.0 153.64 58.2 9.0 153.72 59.1 9.0 153.72 60.2 10.0 153.80 61.1 10.0 153.80 62.1 11.0 153.88 63.2 11.0 153.88 64.2 12.1 153.97 The rightmost column corresponds to pg_collation.collversion in Postgres. Each time there's a new Unicode version, it seems all collation versions are bumped. And there's a new Unicode version pretty much every year these days. Based on this, most ICU upgrades in practice would require reindexing affected indexes. Best regards, -- Daniel Vérité PostgreSQL-powered mailer: http://www.manitou-mail.org Twitter: @DanielVerite