From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Douglas Doole <dougdoole(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Collation versioning |
Date: | 2018-09-18 22:09:31 |
Message-ID: | 20180918220931.GS4184@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greetings,
* Douglas Doole (dougdoole(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> > The CHECK constraint doesn't need to directly track that information-
> > it should have a dependency on the column in the table and that's where
> > the information would be recorded about the current collation version.
>
> Just to have fun throwing odd cases out, how would something like this be
> recorded?
>
> Database default collation: en_US
>
> CREATE TABLE t (c1 TEXT, c2 TEXT, c3 TEXT,
> CHECK (c1 COLLATE "fr_FR" BETWEEN c2 COLLATE "fr_FR" AND c3 COLLATE
> "fr_FR"));
>
> You could even be really warped and apply multiple collations on a single
> column in a single constraint.
Once it gets to an expression and not just a simple check, I'd think
we'd record it in the expression..
Thanks!
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2018-09-18 22:58:00 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] kNN for SP-GiST |
Previous Message | Douglas Doole | 2018-09-18 22:05:51 | Re: Collation versioning |