| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
| Cc: | josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Constraint Type Coercion issue? |
| Date: | 2005-09-14 21:28:42 |
| Message-ID: | 7532.1126733322@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> How much discussion has there been on this?
None yet; I had a few half-baked ideas but nothing worth presenting to
the list.
> To some extent, collate
> implies a sort of parameterised operator class...
Hmm. But an index couldn't support more than one collation order
AFAICS. It'd probably make more sense to create operators and an
operator class for each collation you want to support; the mapping
to a call of a common support function would be embedded inside the
operator definition. Otherwise we have to pass around an additional
parameter through an awful lot of places...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2005-09-14 21:47:23 | Re: Constraint Type Coercion issue? |
| Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2005-09-14 21:15:05 | Re: Constraint Type Coercion issue? |