Re: [DOCS] Pg_upgrade and collation

2016-06-28 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Uhmm. Until now I saw all this ICU thing as having fringe benefit on > strange platforms only, but it is seeming more and more like we need to > take it seriously. I'm not prepared to spend effort on it myself, > though. Let me put it thi

Re: [DOCS] Pg_upgrade and collation

2016-06-28 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Peter Geoghegan wrote: > The best argument for ICU is the evidently lax attitude that the glibc > people have towards the correctness and consistency of their > collations: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1320356#c3 > > Here, Carlos O'Donnell, a glic committer, says "Regarding (b

Re: [DOCS] Pg_upgrade and collation

2016-06-28 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> I have long advocated adopting ICU as our defacto standard "collation >> provider", primarily so that we can directly control collations and >> collation versioning. I think that doing this would solve many >> problems. Besides, even SQLite

Re: [DOCS] Pg_upgrade and collation

2016-06-28 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 02:58:58PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > I think this is way too thin to be helpful: > > > >> --- 61,68 > >> checking for compatible compile-time settings, including 32/64-bit > >> binaries. It is

Re: [DOCS] Pg_upgrade and collation

2016-06-28 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > I think this is way too thin to be helpful: > >> --- 61,68 >> checking for compatible compile-time settings, including 32/64-bit >> binaries. It is important that >> any external modules are also binary compatible, though t

Re: [DOCS] Pg_upgrade and collation

2016-06-28 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 11:16:36AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > In looking at the docs, it seems it would go in the Backup section > somewhere: > > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/backup.html > > Seems it would apply to both of these backup sections: > > 24.2. File System

Re: [DOCS] effective_io_concurrency and SSDs

2016-06-28 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 07:19:57PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I have created the attached doc patch to update effective_io_concurrency > to more accurately cover SSDs. Patch applied. -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.c

Re: [DOCS] Override sort order

2016-06-28 Thread Anthony Ananich
Just in case: by previous question I mean this one: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1bfcd444-70dd-4a32-b2ab-cefcc2922...@gmail.com On Jun 28, 2016, at 14:31, Anthony Ananich wrote: > Dear All, > > I’ve got a need to change sort order for jsonb field. I’m looking for a way > to change “or

[DOCS] Override sort order

2016-06-28 Thread Anthony Ananich
Dear All, I’ve got a need to change sort order for jsonb field. I’m looking for a way to change “order by” behavior like it is described in my previous question. I’ve found a piece of doc which says that it is possible to override method “int compare(Datum a, Datum b)” here: https://www.postgre