| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniel Verite <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: insensitive collations |
| Date: | 2019-01-10 07:49:48 |
| Message-ID: | 91759904-5093-de4c-1e54-e1eb18174210@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 09/01/2019 22:01, Daniel Verite wrote:
>> I don't see anything wrong here. The collation says that both values
>> are equal, so which one is returned is implementation-dependent.
> Is it, but it's impractical if the product of seemingly the same GROUP BY
> flip-flops between its different valid results. If it can't be avoided, then
> okay. If it can be avoided at little cost, then it would be better to do it.
But there is no concept of which one of these is the preferred variant,
so I don't see how the system is supposed to pick one and then stick to
it across separate query invocations.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrey Borodin | 2019-01-10 08:20:39 | Re: GSoC 2019 |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2019-01-10 07:44:35 | Re: insensitive collations |