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: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
