| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Jaime Casanova <jaime(dot)casanova(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Partitioned tables and covering indexes |
| Date: | 2018-04-11 21:29:38 |
| Message-ID: | 352da91b-caeb-bbd9-cfe5-f477ad2628be@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 4/11/18 17:08, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> However, I don't see any point in defining collations here, because
>> INCLUDE attributes exist solely for index-only scans. So, index just
>> can return value of INCLUDE attribute "as is", no point to do something
>> with collation.
>>
>> So, I propose to disable collations for INCLUDE attributes.
> Hmm. I'm not sure that that's exactly the right thing to do. We seem
> to want to have case-insensitive collations in the future. The fact
> that you can spell out collation name in ON CONFLICT's unique index
> inference specification suggests this, for example. I think that a
> collation is theoretically allowed to affect the behavior of equality,
> even though so far we've never tried to make that work for any
> collatable datatype.
But in this case it doesn't even do equality comparison, it just returns
the value.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-04-11 21:31:48 | Re: Native partitioning tablespace inheritance |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2018-04-11 21:28:10 | Re: pgsql: New files for MERGE |