| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Collations versus user-defined functions |
| Date: | 2011-03-13 16:26:16 |
| Message-ID: | 18639C02-6C03-4CFB-B568-B028E3CADC2A@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mar 13, 2011, at 8:25 AM, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> wrote:
> What you're suggesting is going to lead to situations where the user
> sets a non-default collation on every field in every table in the
> database and depending on the query they will sometimes get the default
> collation anyway.
Not that I know a lot about this, but I agree there should be some kind of bubbling up here. ISTM that you could think of this as replacing the text type (and maybe others) by a collection of closely related types, and operators like >(text, text) become parametrically polymorphic. I am not entirely convinced that there won't be corner cases when this implicit polymorphism will get it wrong, but if it does we can apply a suitably sized band-aid. I agree with Martijn's analysis that it will get it right a lot more often; and consequently avoid the need for a lot of manual fiddling.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-03-13 17:16:36 | Re: Collations versus user-defined functions |
| Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2011-03-13 12:25:23 | Re: Collations versus user-defined functions |