On Sun, Oct 01, 2017 at 09:56:11AM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 9/30/17 03:01, Noah Misch wrote:
> > This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due for your status update. On the
> > worst
> > week to be violating open item policies. Kindly send a status update within
> > 24 hours, and include
On 9/30/17 03:01, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 08:26:21AM +, Noah Misch wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 07:01:47PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Peter Eisentraut
>>> wrote:
On 9/18/17 18:46, Peter
On 9/30/17 15:28, Tom Lane wrote:
> This suggests to me that arguing about canonicalization is moot so
> far as avoiding reindexing goes: if you change ICU library versions,
> you're screwed and will have to jump through all the reindexing hoops,
> no matter what we do or don't do.
One reason for
On 9/30/17 15:28, Tom Lane wrote:
> Now, it may still be worthwhile to argue about whether canonicalization
> will help the other component of the problem, which is whether you can
> dump and reload CREATE COLLATION commands into a new ICU version and
> expect to get more-or-less-the-same behavior
On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> This suggests to me that arguing about canonicalization is moot so
> far as avoiding reindexing goes: if you change ICU library versions,
> you're screwed and will have to jump through all the reindexing hoops,
> no matter
Noah Misch writes:
> On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 11:25:43AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Sure, but dealing with that is mechanical: reindex the necessary indexes
>> and you're done.
> In the general case, one must revalidate CHECK constraints, re-partition
> tables, revalidate range
On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 11:25:43AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch writes:
> > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 09:36:44AM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> >>> I think it's inevitable that a certain number of users are going to
> >>> have to cope with ICU version changes breaking
On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'd also argue that the point of adopting ICU was exactly so we *could*
> distinguish those cases, and limit the scope of a normal upgrade to
> "reindex these identifiable indexes and you're done". In the libc world,
> when
Noah Misch writes:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 09:36:44AM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>>> I think it's inevitable that a certain number of users are going to
>>> have to cope with ICU version changes breaking stuff.
>> Wasn't the main point of adopting ICU that that doesn't
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 09:36:44AM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 9:06 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> The big concern I have here is that this feels a lot like something that
> >> we'll regret at leisure, if it's not right in the first release. I'd
>
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 08:26:21AM +, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 07:01:47PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Peter Eisentraut
> > wrote:
> > > On 9/18/17 18:46, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > >> As I pointed out
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 07:01:47PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
> > On 9/18/17 18:46, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> >> As I pointed out a couple of times already [1], we don't currently
> >> sanitize ICU's
12 matches
Mail list logo