| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Bug in either collation docs or code |
| Date: | 2018-06-08 16:36:00 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwavMqRr=eXMFRWj5ER4BdvPcF-=o2a3p__MeWxWmCaCDw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 9:24 AM, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> It seems like this would not allow the function/operator to decide if it
> cares about a determinate collation during execution, since it would
> already have errored out during planning.
>
In the case where the function/operator doesn't care one shouldn't be
attaching explicit collation clauses to its inputs anyway - it is a
semantic bug if nothing else and a bug during planning pointing that out
seems useful.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-06-08 16:39:07 | Re: Transform for pl/perl |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2018-06-08 16:32:36 | Re: why partition pruning doesn't work? |