Re: orderRules() now a bad idea?

Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > Tom Lane writes:
> >> It looks like NAME comparison uses strcmp (actually strncmp). So it'll
> >> be numeric byte-code order.
> >> There's no particular reason we couldn't make that be strcoll instead,
> >> I suppose, except perhaps speed.
>
> > But how will this work when we have per-column/datum collation order?
> > And what about languages that don't have any useful collation order for
> > their alphabets (far east)? ISTM that a globally viable feature of this
> > sort would have to sort by something numeric.
>
> I'm confused; are you saying that NAME's sort behavior is good as-is?
> If not, what would you have it do differently?

Yes, exotic ordering of rules just doesn't seem warranted. I think it
should match the ordering of pg_class.name, which is strcmp() already.

Let's do ASCII ordering (strcmp) and see how things go.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073