On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 4:22 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>> Not sure what to do about this. Is it okay to suppose that collation
>> can be ignored when matching to a collation-less index?
> That sounds correct on first reading.
Doesn't this depend on the semantics of the ? operator?
Hypothetically if there was an operator like ?< which returned a list
of hstore keys that were < the argument then ?< would indeed depend on
the collation used even if hstore didn't do collations. If there was
an index type on hstore which could handle ?< then it would need to
have the right collation to be usable.
Of course we know ? doesn't depend on the collation but where is that
information? I suspect we should actually have an explicit flag for
In response to
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2011-09-29 04:08:14|
|Subject: Re: BUG #6232: hstore operator ? no longer uses indexes |
|Previous:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2011-09-29 03:22:48|
|Subject: Re: BUG #6232: hstore operator ? no longer uses indexes|