| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: PATCH: CITEXT 2.0 |
| Date: | 2008-07-07 19:26:05 |
| Message-ID: | D0094897-A812-416E-8E8F-3193ACC55BFC@kineticode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jul 7, 2008, at 12:21, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> My question is: why? Shouldn't they all use the same function for
> comparison? I'm happy to dupe this implementation for citext, but I
> don't understand it. Should not all comparisons be executed
> consistently?
Let me try to answer my own question by citing this comment:
/*
* Since we only care about equality or not-equality, we can avoid
all the
* expense of strcoll() here, and just do bitwise comparison.
*/
So, the upshot is that the = and <> operators are not locale-aware,
yes? They just do byte comparisons. Is that really the way it should
be? I mean, could there not be strings that are equivalent but have
different bytes?
Thanks,
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-07-07 19:33:10 | Re: the un-vacuumable table |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2008-07-07 19:23:10 | Re: PATCH: CITEXT 2.0 v2 |