| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM> |
| Cc: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PATCH: CITEXT 2.0 v2 |
| Date: | 2008-07-07 15:01:35 |
| Message-ID: | 48722FCF.3040208@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Zdenek Kotala wrote:
>
>
> 2) contrib vs. pgFoundry
>
> There is unresolved answer if we want to have this in contrib or not.
> Good to mention that citext type will be obsoleted with full collation
> implementation in a future. I personally prefer to keep it on
> pgFoundry because it is temporally workaround (by my opinion), but I
> can live with contrib module as well.
>
>
>
Is there a concrete plan to get to full collation support (i.e. per
column) in any known time frame? If not, then I think a citext module
would be acceptable.
What does still bother me is its performance. I'd like to know if any
measurement has been done of using citext vs. a functional index on
lower(foo).
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-07-07 15:07:09 | Re: Schema-qualified statements in pg_dump output |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2008-07-07 15:00:49 | Re: [HACKERS] SSL configure patch |