Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org> writes:
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Why would we not keep this information right in the string values?
> We could, but then we would need to parse it every time.
Huh? We'd store it in the most compact pre-parsed form we could think
of; probably some sort of index into a list of supported character sets
and collations. (This is not so different from representing timezones
inside timestamptz values, instead of using a global setting.)
> Are you worried about performance or is it the smaller change that you
I'm worried about the fact that instead of, say, one length(text)
function, we would now have to have a different one for every
characterset/collation. Not to mention one for every possible N in
varchar(N). Making those properties part of a function's parameter
signature is unworkable on its face --- it'll cause an exponential
explosion in the number of pg_proc entries, and probably make it
impossible to resolve a unique candidate function in many situations.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2004-10-30 19:07:30|
|Subject: Re: 8.0b4: COMMIT outside of a transaction echoes ROLLBACK|
|Previous:||From: Dennis Bjorklund||Date: 2004-10-30 18:32:13|
|Subject: Re: Charset/collate support and function parameters |