Re: Collations and Replication; Next Steps

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
Cc: Matthew Kelly <mkelly(at)tripadvisor(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Matthew Spilich <mspilich(at)tripadvisor(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Collations and Replication; Next Steps
Date: 2014-09-17 18:05:11
Message-ID: 5419CD57.4060507@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 9/16/14 5:57 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>> Clearly, this is worth documenting, but I don't think we can completely
>> prevent the problem. There has been talk of a built-in index integrity
>> checking tool. That would be quite useful.
>
> We could at least use the GNU facility for versioning collations where
> available, LC_IDENTIFICATION [1].

It looks like the revisions or dates reported by LC_IDENTIFICATION
aren't ever updated for most locales.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2014-09-17 18:07:39 Re: Collations and Replication; Next Steps
Previous Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2014-09-17 18:04:53 Re: Collations and Replication; Next Steps