From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Asko Oja <ascoja(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution? |
Date: | 2008-07-28 19:49:21 |
Message-ID: | 27082.1217274561@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Well, it won't make it harder to implement collations; but I worry that
>> people who have been relying on the citext syntax will have a hard time
>> migrating to collations. Perhaps if someone did the legwork to
>> determine exactly what that conversion would look like, it would assuage
>> the fear.
> I kind of assumed we would do it by implementing the COLLATE clause of
> the CREATE DOMAIN statement.
But to define such a domain, you'd have to commit to a case-insensitive
version of a specific collation, no? citext currently means "case
insensitive version of whatever the database's default collation is".
This might be worrying over nothing significant, but I'm not
convinced...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2008-07-28 20:05:17 | Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution? |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2008-07-28 19:42:40 | Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution? |