...

    =?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