On Jul 28, 2008, at 12:29, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> ISTM that Tom's objection is really that citext is a hack, and that
>> will actually make it harder for us to get to a collation-based case
>> insensitive comparison.
> Well, it won't make it harder to implement collations; but I worry
> people who have been relying on the citext syntax will have a hard
> migrating to collations. Perhaps if someone did the legwork to
> determine exactly what that conversion would look like, it would
> the fear.
Well, there is no syntax for citext. Right now, lots of folks are
using LOWER() all over the place, in indexes and queries, to get the
behavior implemented by citext, and that will be a *lot* harder to
migrate from than citext will be. To upgrade from citext, I expect
that what one will have to do is to alter the column to change its
data type from citext to TEXT + collation.
Am I missing something here?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: David Fetter||Date: 2008-07-29 01:24:51|
|Subject: Re: window function v03 against HEAD|
|Previous:||From: Andrew Gierth||Date: 2008-07-29 00:13:16|
|Subject: Re: WITH RECUSIVE patches 0723|