From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Mage <mage(at)mage(dot)hu> |
Subject: | Re: is this a bug or I am blind? |
Date: | 2005-12-17 18:52:18 |
Message-ID: | 200512171952.19234.peter_e@gmx.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Perhaps the fast-path check is a bad idea, but fixing this is not
> just a matter of removing that. If we subscribe to strcoll's
> worldview then we have to conclude that *text strings are not
> hashable*, because strings that should be "equal" may have different
> hash codes.
By the way, I have always been concerned about the feature of Unicode
that you can write logically equivalent strings using different
code-point sequences. Namely, you often have the option of writing an
accented letter using the "legacy" single codepoint (like in ISO
8859-something) or alternatively using accept plus "base letter" as two
code points. Collating systems should treat them the same, so hashing
the byte values won't work anyway. This is a more extreme case of
"tyty" vs. "tty" because using a proper rendering system, those Unicode
strings should look the same to the naked eye. Therefore, I'm doubtful
that using a binary comparison as tie-breaker is proper behavior.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2005-12-17 18:54:42 | Re: 8.1 build on Solaris has LATIN9? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-17 18:31:08 | Re: DBlink documentation |