Re: collation problem on 9.1-beta1

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Marc Cousin <cousinmarc(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: collation problem on 9.1-beta1
Date: 2011-06-10 03:24:36
Message-ID: 201106100324.p5A3OaI23221@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> > On tor, 2011-06-09 at 13:30 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> Column numbers in ORDER BY is ANSI syntax so I don't think calling
> >> them "legacy" is accurate. ?"limited functionality"?
> >
> > It was in SQL 92, but removed in 99, so it's technically no longer part
> > of the standard.

Wow, they removed it; I use it all the time.

> It's still extremely widely used though, I think, and very useful. I
> don't feel we have to support GROUP BY 1 COLLATE whatever, but it
> might be worth the trouble to at least emit a decent HINT.

True. Seems now these numbers are PG extensions!

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +

In response to

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Denis de Bernardy 2011-06-10 12:44:43 expanded mode + wrapping in psql
Previous Message Abel Abraham Camarillo Ojeda 2011-06-10 02:23:38 Re: Difference in postgres9.0.4 and postgres9.1beta1 when displaying error lines in functions with comments