Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?

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 (view raw or flat)
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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2008-07-28 20:05:17
Subject: Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2008-07-28 19:42:40
Subject: Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group