From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [WIP] patch - Collation at database level |
Date: | 2008-07-08 18:08:56 |
Message-ID: | 12138.1215540536@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> Andrew, Tom,
>> Agreed. Are we even sure that we want per-database collations as a
>> half-way house? Unless we can be sure that we want all the required
>> catalog changes for the full requirement, it seems to me a rather messy
>> way of getting to where we want to go.
> Given that we don't have a delivery date for table or column level collations,
> we don't want to turn down database-level collations.
I am one hundred percent prepared to turn them down, if they end up
contorting the design in a way that we will have to undo (with
consequent backwards-compatibility problems) to get to the full feature.
If it's a partial implementation of the full feature, that's fine, but
I'm not getting good vibes about that from the discussions so far.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2008-07-08 18:18:06 | Re: Identifier case folding notes |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-07-08 17:53:25 | Re: Identifier case folding notes |