From: | Michael Paesold <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at> |
---|---|
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 16:33:41 |
Message-ID: | EEA0C5EF-E9F7-4D45-BB3F-4B9EE2302CA2@gmx.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM> writes:
>> Martijn van Oosterhout napsal(a):
>>> Not necessarily. pg_class is not shared yet without it you can't
>>> even
>>> find pg_database. Same deal with pg_type. All it means is that
>>> pg_collation in template1 must contain all the collations used in
>>> template1, which shouldn't be hard to arrange.
>
>> I think, Collation situation is different,
>
> 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.
Wouldn't you still need per-database and per-table default collations?
At least MySQL does have such a concept.
Best Regards
Michael Paesold
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2008-07-08 16:35:32 | Re: [PATCHES] Solaris ident authentication using unix domain sockets |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2008-07-08 16:31:41 | Re: [WIP] patch - Collation at database level |