Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?

From: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Asko Oja <ascoja(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?
Date: 2008-07-29 00:49:38
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Jul 28, 2008, at 12:29, Tom Lane wrote:

> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> ISTM that Tom's objection is really that citext is a hack, and that  
>> it
>> will actually make it harder for us to get to a collation-based case
>> insensitive comparison.
> Well, it won't make it harder to implement collations; but I worry  
> that
> people who have been relying on the citext syntax will have a hard  
> time
> migrating to collations.  Perhaps if someone did the legwork to
> determine exactly what that conversion would look like, it would  
> assuage
> the fear.

Well, there is no syntax for citext. Right now, lots of folks are  
using LOWER() all over the place, in indexes and queries, to get the  
behavior implemented by citext, and that will be a *lot* harder to  
migrate from than citext will be. To upgrade from citext, I expect  
that what one will have to do is to alter the column to change its  
data type from citext to TEXT + collation.

Am I missing something here?



In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: David FetterDate: 2008-07-29 01:24:51
Subject: Re: window function v03 against HEAD
Previous:From: Andrew GierthDate: 2008-07-29 00:13:16
Subject: Re: WITH RECUSIVE patches 0723

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group