| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Radek Strnad <radek(dot)strnad(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [WIP] patch - Collation at database level |
| Date: | 2008-07-08 14:54:28 |
| Message-ID: | 48737FA4.4080308@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> All the argument here is based on the premise that we should have
> database-level collation specifications, which AFAICS is not required
> nor suggested by the SQL spec. I wonder why we are allowing a
> nonstandard half-measure to drive our thinking, rather than solving the
> real problem which is column-level collations.
>
>
>
Agreed. Are we even sure that we want per-database collations as a
half-way house? Unless we can be sure that we want all the required
catalog changes for the full requirement, it seems to me a rather messy
way of getting to where we want to go.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2008-07-08 15:02:51 | Re: [WIP] patch - Collation at database level |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-07-08 14:51:09 | Re: Exposing quals |