public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Laurenz Albe <[email protected]>
To: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
To: Jeff Davis <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Change initdb default to the builtin collation provider
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2026 21:32:43 +0100
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+Tgmob7WJ3iETZea=P_eQ2-74q6xE_Vqnz074M5w5VD=dKURA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<CA+TgmobnOn9ipEUcthLmxvv0ZKBWyCcc048qqgqy1X+tszw_Cg@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<CA+TgmoYPfiz6_QjkiKykwziFDZFzPVf_x77rChYBu=OGVOmbYw@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<CA+Tgmob7WJ3iETZea=P_eQ2-74q6xE_Vqnz074M5w5VD=dKURA@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, 2026-03-12 at 10:04 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> So maybe the people who are saying that defaulting to C is fine and
> that making people make an explicit choice if they want something else
> are right. but my personal guess is that we will make a bunch of
> people unhappy.

Defaulting to C will make a bunch of people unhappy, I agree.
However, that is a kind of problem that they will discover early on
during development or testing, and it is easily remedied for those
columns where alphabetical sorting order matters.

But a good number of people are already unhappy because they have
index corruption (today I dealt with another support case).
And the people who are diligent enough to know that they should
reindex after an OS update are unhappy because of the additional
down time.

I maintain that the second kind of unhappiness weighs heavier,
and I find this need to reindex to be one of the most embarrassing
flaws in an otherwise great piece of software.

This is a value judgement, and I may be wrong.

> If even a small fraction of users create a
> database using "C" unintentionally and load a terabyte of data into it
> before realizing that all their text indexes are sorting "wrong", I
> suspect that's not going to be much fun.

Hm.  So reindexing a large table after an OS upgrade is acceptable,
but reindexing a large table after a bulk load is not?  The problem
you describe could have been avoided with a bit of testing, but the
need to reindex after an OS upgrade sometimes cannot be avoided.

> Obviously, I could be wildly incorrect. Maybe people will just be
> super-happy about faster sorting and life will be great.

I have not experienced sort speed as a frequent problem, and the
life with the C collation won't be all that great.  But I believe
that it would be better than a life with index corruption.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe

view thread (16+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: Change initdb default to the builtin collation provider
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox