Re: [WIP] patch - Collation at database level

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Radek Strnad <radek(dot)strnad(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [WIP] patch - Collation at database level
Date: 2008-07-02 17:02:36
Message-ID: 20080702170236.GV18252@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane escribió:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > Why does a collation have a schema?
>
> Because the SQL spec says so. Also, if we don't put them in schemas,
> we have no nice way to distinguish built-in and user-defined collations,
> which creates a problem for pg_dump.

Oh, I see :-) In that case, qualified_name would seem the right symbol
to use in the parser.

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Teodor Sigaev 2008-07-02 18:12:17 Re: [PATCHES] GIN improvements
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-07-02 16:55:42 Re: [WIP] patch - Collation at database level