| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Darren Duncan <darren(at)darrenduncan(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Range Types and extensions |
| Date: | 2011-06-19 18:08:39 |
| Message-ID: | 1308506919.2597.83.camel@jdavis |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 2011-06-19 at 12:24 +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> Collation checking is generally done by the planner. I don't see why
> the input function should check, the result of an input function is by
> definition DEFAULT. It's up to the 'in' operator to check.
>
> Note that the whole idea of collation is not really supposed to be
> assigned to object for storage. How that can be resolved I'm not sure.
I think if we just say that it's a property of the range type
definition, then that's OK. It's similar to specifying a non-default
btree opclass for the range type -- it just changes which total order
the range type adheres to.
If you meant that the collation shouldn't be stored along with the value
itself, then I agree.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-06-19 18:16:43 | Re: heap_hot_search_buffer refactoring |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2011-06-19 18:01:10 | Re: heap_hot_search_buffer refactoring |