Tatsuo Ishii writes:
> > I don't think so. The sort order is independent of the character
> > encoding, and vice versa. It must be, because
> This seems different from SQL's CREATE COLLATION syntax.
> >From SQL99's CREATE COLLATION definition:
> CREATE COLLATION <collation name> FOR
> <character set specification>
> FROM <existing collation name>
> [ <pad characteristic> ]
> So it seems a collation depends on a character set.
I see. But that really doesn't have anything to do with reality. In
fact, it completely undermines the transparency of the character set
encoding that we're probably trying to achieve.
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2001-11-25 22:55:09|
|Subject: Re: Call for objections: deprecate postmaster -o switch? |
|Previous:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2001-11-25 22:31:06|
|Subject: Re: Call for objections: deprecate postmaster -o switch?|