No title

=?UTF-8?Q?=D0=BE=D0=B2=D1=87=D0=B5=D0=BD=D0=BA=D0=BE" ?=
<roman.lytovchenko@gmail.com>,
"PostgreSQL mailing lists" <pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: BUG #15285: Query used index over field with ICU collation in some cases wrongly return 0 rows
In-reply-to: <c00a63d3-f9c3-4222-a659-637232523b30@manitou-mail.org>
References: <c00a63d3-f9c3-4222-a659-637232523b30@manitou-mail.org>
Comments: In-reply-to "Daniel Verite" <daniel@manitou-mail.org>
message dated "Thu, 03 Sep 2020 11:29:15 +0200"
Fcc: inbox
--------
"Daniel Verite" <daniel@manitou-mail.org> writes:

Now that we know that this collation is problematic, we could remove
this example, even if we don't want to go as far as documenting
ICU bugs. In fact bug reports used the same name "digitslast", so
I wonder if people tried this straight from our doc.

If we aren't going to try to work around the bug, I agree that
removing that example (or replacing it with a less buggy one?)
is a good idea.

I tend to agree with Peter that trying to work around a bug that
isn't ours and that we don't fully understand is not going to
be very productive. What is the argument, other than observation
of a small number of test cases, that these other subroutines
don't have bugs of their own?

regards, tom lane