| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: ALTER TYPE COLLATABLE? |
| Date: | 2011-02-18 11:35:16 |
| Message-ID: | 1298028916.22682.2.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On tor, 2011-02-17 at 17:50 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> What are we going to do to allow the citext update script to fix this?
> I see no sign that ALTER TYPE can fix it (and am unsure that we'd want
> to add such a feature, particularly not right now).
How would this normally be handled if a type changes properties or wants
to make use of a new property? I guess the answer is that there is no
"normally".
> Is it time for a direct UPDATE on the pg_type row? If so, to what? I see
> pg_type.typcollation is supposed to be an OID, so how the heck does
> one map a bool CREATE TYPE parameter into the catalog entry?
It's 100, which is the OID of "default" in pg_collation. The value may
be different for domains. (Earlier versions of the feature had a
boolean column and a separate collation column for domains, but somehow
it turned out to be quite redundant.)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Itagaki Takahiro | 2011-02-18 11:42:50 | Assertion failure on UNLOGGED VIEW and SEQUENCE |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-02-18 11:34:05 | pgsql: Separate messages for standby replies and hot standby feedback. |