From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Collations versus record-returning functions |
Date: | 2011-03-19 16:45:01 |
Message-ID: | 14254.1300553101@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> ISTM there are basically three things we might do about this:
> (1) Decide that the patch's behavior is correct and what's embodied in
> the regression expected file is wrong.
> (2) Allow collations to propagate up through nodes that deliver
> noncollatable outputs.
> (3) Decide that composite types are collatable.
I thought of another possibility, which is to special-case field
selection from a function-returning-composite, ie make it look
through the function node and use the function's input collation.
FieldSelect needs to be a special case in the collation assignment code
anyway because of the possibility of taking the collation from the field
declaration instead of the input, so this is not *quite* as ugly as it
first sounds. It's still ugly, but it makes that regression test pass
with only a very localized change. So I will do it like that for now
until someone comes up with an argument for another choice.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marko Kreen | 2011-03-19 17:13:42 | Re: tolower() identifier downcasing versus multibyte encodings |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-03-19 16:39:03 | Re: Indent authentication overloading |