| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <barry(at)xythos(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: OCTET_LENGTH is wrong |
| Date: | 2001-11-25 22:31:23 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.30.0111252243340.609-100000@peter.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tatsuo Ishii writes:
> > I don't think so. The sort order is independent of the character
> > encoding, and vice versa. It must be, because
>
> This seems different from SQL's CREATE COLLATION syntax.
> >From SQL99's CREATE COLLATION definition:
>
> CREATE COLLATION <collation name> FOR
> <character set specification>
> FROM <existing collation name>
> [ <pad characteristic> ]
>
> So it seems a collation depends on a character set.
I see. But that really doesn't have anything to do with reality. In
fact, it completely undermines the transparency of the character set
encoding that we're probably trying to achieve.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-11-25 22:55:09 | Re: Call for objections: deprecate postmaster -o switch? |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-11-25 22:31:06 | Re: Call for objections: deprecate postmaster -o switch? |