Re: email data type first release

From: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: email data type first release
Date: 2004-05-17 20:52:49
Message-ID: 87smdyvkri.fsf@stark.xeocode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


Tommi Maekitalo <t(dot)maekitalo(at)epgmbh(dot)de> writes:

> Sorting should then be done by top-level-domain first. Then 2nd, 3rd... and
> last by user.

I thought of that but decided not to suggest it:

a) as far as email goes there's no relationship between xxx(at)foo(dot)com and
xxx(at)bar(dot)com(dot) The ".com" doesn't mean the emails are any more related than
xxx(at)foo(dot)com and xxx(at)foo(dot)org are. In fact in practice the latter two are
more likely to be related.

b) it's a lot of extra work, whereas sorting by domain first is just as easy
as sorting by lhs first.

--
greg

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2004-05-17 21:06:18 Re: Call for 7.5 feature completion
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2004-05-17 20:45:37 Re: Call for 7.5 feature completion