| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Collations versus record-returning functions |
| Date: | 2011-03-22 08:39:01 |
| Message-ID: | 1300783141.7698.14.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On sön, 2011-03-20 at 20:26 +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> A rowtype has an order, determined by the fields within it. Those
> fields may be strings and so may have a collation. Doesn't seem
> particularly magical to me.
Yeah, that's answer #4. The composite types themselves are not
considered collatable, but the fields in them carry collation
individually. That's what the test case in question represents, and I
think it must work like that if you maintain the analogy between
composite types and tables (which have columns that carry collation
individually).
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Piyush Newe | 2011-03-22 09:07:09 | Re: Rectifying wrong Date outputs |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2011-03-22 08:30:27 | Re: Chinese initdb on Windows |