| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Hans-Juergen Schoenig <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Subject: | Re: TEXT vs PG_NODE_TREE in system columns (cross column and expression statistics patch) |
| Date: | 2011-04-28 15:36:37 |
| Message-ID: | 28180.1304004997@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Excerpts from Boszormenyi Zoltan's message of jue abr 28 11:03:56 -0300 2011:
>> ERROR: could not determine which collation to use for string comparison
>> HINT: Use the COLLATE clause to set the collation explicitly.
> Maybe the pg_node_tree problem is a bug with the collation feature. If
> you could reproduce it in unpatched master, I'm sure it'd find a quick
> death.
Actually, I rather imagine it comes from this choice in catcache.c:
/* Currently, there are no catcaches on collation-aware data types */
cache->cc_skey[i].sk_collation = InvalidOid;
I'd be more worried about that if I thought it made any sense to use
a pg_node_tree column as an index key, but I don't ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Roberto Mello | 2011-04-28 15:37:50 | Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Core Team |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2011-04-28 15:21:39 | Re: TEXT vs PG_NODE_TREE in system columns (cross column and expression statistics patch) |