Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> writes:
> I also suspect that the test case happens to tickle some obscure UCA
> implementation detail in just the right/wrong way, where (for whatever
> reason) it is necessary for the implementation to use a fairly large
> buffer, despite the fact that it knows that its varlena.c caller will
> only require enough conditioned binary key bytes to build an 8 byte
> abbreviated key. It might be very rare and hard to hit (and/or depend
> on the ICU version), which would explain why it took this long to hear
> any complaints. So...I think that it might be quite difficult to test
> this.
I think that on our side, it also requires using incremental sort,
creating yet another obstacle to building a small test case.
> BTW, is the plan to get rid of the questionable coding pattern in both
> varstr_abbrev_convert() and in varstrfastcmp_locale()? I am in favor
> of just using repalloc() across the board.
Yeah, done that way already.
regards, tom lane