| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: should check collations when creating partitioned index |
| Date: | 2023-11-20 16:25:33 |
| Message-ID: | 1327559.1700497533@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> writes:
> On 14.11.23 17:15, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't love the patch details though. It seems entirely wrong to check
>> this before we check the opclass match.
> Not sure why? The order doesn't seem to matter?
The case that was bothering me was if we had a non-collated type
versus a collated type. That would result in throwing an error
about collation mismatch, when complaining about the opclass seems
more apropos. However, if we do this:
> I see. That means we shouldn't raise an error on a mismatch but just do
> if (key->partcollation[i] != collationIds[j])
> continue;
it might not matter much.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2023-11-20 16:40:43 | Re: On non-Windows, hard depend on uselocale(3) |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2023-11-20 16:24:25 | Re: Use of backup_label not noted in log |