From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org> |
Cc: | Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: locale |
Date: | 2004-04-08 14:39:29 |
Message-ID: | 13779.1081435169@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org> writes:
> On Thu, 8 Apr 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
>> See my previous point: the index does not actually fail, in our current
>> implementation, because strcoll() is unaffected by the database's
>> encoding setting.
> How can it be? If I have a utf-8 template1 and a table with an index
> sorted according to the utf-8 characters in some locale. Then this table
> and index is copied into a Latin1 database. When I interpret these bytes
> as Latin1 in the index, the ordering does not have to be the same as it
> was before and the index can not be used.
No, the ordering *will* be the same as it was before, because strcoll()
is still functioning the same. You'd get the same answer from a sort
operation since it depends on the same operators.
Now, you will probably complain that the sort order doesn't appear
correct according to your Latin1 interpretation --- and you're right.
But the index is not corrupt, it is still consistent in its own terms.
> I don't understand what you mean when you say that strcoll() is unaffected
> by the database's encoding setting. It interprets characters, how can it
> not be?
It interprets them according to LC_CTYPE, which does not change.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-04-08 14:51:05 | Re: make == as = ? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-04-08 14:31:44 | Re: PostgreSQL configuration |