On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 03:29:07PM -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Marking all indexes as invalid would be an enormous overkill. We don't
> even know for sure that the values the user has indexed happens to be
> affected. In order for there to have been a bug in ICU in the first
> place, the likelihood is that it only occurs in what are edge cases
> for the collator.
> ICU is a very popular library, used in software that I personally
> interact with every day [1]. Any bugs like this should be exceptional.
> They very clearly appreciate how sensitive software like Postgres is
> to changes like this, which is why the versioning API exists.
> [1] http://site.icu-project.org/#TOC-Who-Uses-ICU-

So we don't have any other cases where we warn about possible corruption
except this?

Also, I will go back to my previous concern, that while I like the fact
we can detect collation changes with ICU, we don't know if ICU
collations change more often than OS collations.

  Bruce Momjian  <br...@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to