Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
Subject: Re: REINDEX backend filtering
From: Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210315173401.yqgxgmbspiyfrbks@nol>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 10:40:25 -0700
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
 Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>,
 PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9AC710C9-7006-43EC-93F6-7A7ABFE09E80@enterprisedb.com>
References: <20210303055659.wowfwt2nyxuynzqg@nol>
 <20210314081007.kr3q5qusyhl2i4p4@nol> <YE35Y//jLIb7gFLu@paquier.xyz>
 <20210314145737.enqhi2jxszws3ywi@nol> <YE6ikDiXyA0w19UI@paquier.xyz>
 <20210315003551.enuwfghdh7qhfnb2@nol> <20210315033320.4273frstqn7w6kh7@nol>
 <0E0B73C0-EBC0-490A-9347-66A66E3338AE@enterprisedb.com>
 <20210315165213.tgxwtjtnlnr2q3f5@nol>
 <074D5DFD-4D47-4A84-93A5-C2DC8935E6E9@enterprisedb.com>
 <20210315173401.yqgxgmbspiyfrbks@nol>
To: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/9AC710C9-7006-43EC-93F6-7A7ABFE09E80%40enterprisedb.com>
Precedence: bulk


> On Mar 15, 2021, at 10:34 AM, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 10:13:55AM -0700, Mark Dilger wrote:
>>=20
>>=20
>>> On Mar 15, 2021, at 9:52 AM, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>>>=20
>>> But there are also the tests in collate.icu.utf8.out which will fake =
outdated
>>> collations (that's the original tests for the collation tracking =
patches) and
>>> then check that outdated indexes are reindexed with both REINDEX and =
REINDEX
>>> (OUDATED).
>>>=20
>>> So I think that all cases are covered.  Do you want to have more =
test cases?
>>=20
>> I thought that just checked cases where a bogus 'not a version' was =
put into pg_catalog.pg_depend.  I'm talking about having a collation =
provider who returns a different version string and has genuinely =
different collation rules between versions, thereby breaking the index =
until it is updated.  Is that being tested?
>=20
> No, we're only checking that the infrastructure works as intended.
>=20
> Are you saying that you want to implement a simplistic collation =
provider with
> "tunable" ordering, so that you can actually check that an ordering =
change will
> be detected as a corrupted index, as in you'll get some error or =
incorrect
> results?

I'm saying that your patch seems to call down to =
get_collation_actual_version() via get_collation_version_for_oid() from =
your new function do_check_index_has_outdated_collation(), but I'm not =
seeing how that gets exercised. =20

=E2=80=94
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company