Re: Bug in either collation docs or code

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Bug in either collation docs or code
Date: 2018-06-08 16:41:15
Message-ID: 27318.1528476075@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> In this case, why treat implicit and explicit collation conflicts
> differently?

Um ... because the SQL standard says so?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Rowley 2018-06-08 16:43:08 Re: Needless additional partition check in INSERT?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-06-08 16:39:07 Re: Transform for pl/perl