pá 17. 2. 2023 v 18:02 odesílatel Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> napsal:
> On Fri, 2023-02-17 at 00:06 -0800, Jeff Davis wrote: > > On Tue, 2023-02-14 at 09:59 -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > > > I am saying that pg_upgrade should be able to deal with the > > > difference. The > > > details of how to implement that, don't matter that much. > > > > To clarify, you're saying that pg_upgrade should simply update > > pg_database to set the new databases' collation fields equal to that > > of > > the old cluster? > > Thinking about this more, it's not clear to me if this would be in > scope for pg_upgrade or not. If pg_upgrade is fixing up the new cluster > rather than checking for compatibility, why doesn't it just take over > and do the initdb for the new cluster itself? That would be less > confusing for users, and avoid some weirdness (like, if you drop the > database "postgres" on the original, why does it reappear after an > upgrade?). > > Someone might want to do something interesting to the new cluster > before the upgrade, but it's not clear from the docs what would be both > useful and safe. > Today I tested icu for Czech sorting. It is a little bit slower, but not too much, but it produces partially different results. select row_number() over (order by nazev collate "cs-x-icu"), nazev from obce except select row_number() over (order by nazev collate "cs_CZ"), nazev from obce; returns a not empty set. So minimally for Czech collate, an index rebuild is necessary Regards Pavel > > Regards, > Jeff Davis > > > >
