| From: | Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: insensitive collations |
| Date: | 2019-01-09 18:49:37 |
| Message-ID: | 9fd63f66-fb85-9bb9-2499-28dac918161a@proxel.se |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/28/18 9:55 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Here is an updated patch.
>
> I have updated the naming to "deterministic", as discussed.
Maybe this is orthogonal and best handled elsewhere but have you when
working with string equality given unicode normalization forms[1] any
thought? I feel there are three sane ways to do unicode string equality:
1) Binary equality
2) Binary equality after normalizing the unicode
3) Collation equality
Would there be any point in adding unicode normalization support into
the collation system or is this best handle for example with a function
run on INSERT or with something else entirely?
Right now PosgreSQL does not have any support for normalization forms as
far as I know.
1. http://unicode.org/reports/tr15/
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-01-09 19:04:15 | Re: reducing the footprint of ScanKeyword (was Re: Large writable variables) |
| Previous Message | Bossart, Nathan | 2019-01-09 18:42:40 | Re: A few new options for vacuumdb |