On 2015-05-18 23:22:33 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > On 2015-05-18 19:59:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I think that's fragile as can be. > > > Hm. I think actually just forcing a collation would bring this on-par > > with name, right? We don't have any guarantees about the contents of > > e.g. pg_database.datname being meaningful in another database with a > > different encoding. In fact even the current database may have a name > > that's in a wrong encoding. > > Oh, wait a minute. I just noticed that you have > pg_replication_origin_roname_index defined to use varchar_pattern_ops. > Now, this is mildly broken: it should be text_pattern_ops. But as far as > I can see offhand, that eliminates the collation dependency for the index. > The comparison rule is memcmp() which is not collation sensitive.
Hah. Right. Forgot about that. Oh Brain, where art thou. > I'm inclined to think I should revert b82a7be603f1811a and instead make > the seclabel provider columns use text_pattern_ops. That would fix > their collation problem with less of a backwards compatibility hazard. Sounds good to me. Are you doing that or should I? -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
