Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gr1ze-0000kO-I7 for pgsql-sql@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 05 Feb 2019 14:46:34 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gr1zc-0002La-F7 for pgsql-sql@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 05 Feb 2019 14:46:32 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gr1zc-0002LJ-4u; Tue, 05 Feb 2019 14:46:32 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gr1zZ-0006Uy-Ny; Tue, 05 Feb 2019 14:46:30 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x15EkRej019784; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 09:46:27 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Peter Eisentraut cc: "Voillequin, Jean-Marc" , pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org, pgsql-sql@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: Weird "could not determine which collation to use for string comparison" with LEAST/GREATEST on PG11 procedure In-reply-to: <66209b1a-db5b-d578-6674-1be789c581f5@2ndquadrant.com> References: <1EC8157EB499BF459A516ADCF135ADCE39FFAC54@LON-WGMSX712.ad.moodys.net> <12249.1542824360@sss.pgh.pa.us> <66209b1a-db5b-d578-6674-1be789c581f5@2ndquadrant.com> Comments: In-reply-to Peter Eisentraut message dated "Tue, 05 Feb 2019 15:11:32 +0100" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <19782.1549377987.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2019 09:46:27 -0500 Message-ID: <19783.1549377987@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 21/11/2018 19:19, Tom Lane wrote: >> Yeah, same here. I think somebody forgot to run assign_expr_collations() >> on CALL arguments. > This appears to fix it. I think this should be fine as a band-aid patch. As I mentioned previously, I'm not really happy with our generally-unprincipled approach to where collation assignment is called from ... but a bug-fix patch should probably not be tasked with making that better. Especially not with less than a week till 11.2. regards, tom lane