Re: orderRules() now a bad idea?

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: orderRules() now a bad idea?
Date: 2002-10-16 22:11:53
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.44.0210161857560.928-100000@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane writes:

> > But alphabetical? According to whose definition of the alphabet?
>
> It looks like NAME comparison uses strcmp (actually strncmp). So it'll
> be numeric byte-code order.
>
> There's no particular reason we couldn't make that be strcoll instead,
> I suppose, except perhaps speed.

But how will this work when we have per-column/datum collation order?
And what about languages that don't have any useful collation order for
their alphabets (far east)? ISTM that a globally viable feature of this
sort would have to sort by something numeric.

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2002-10-16 22:12:08 Re: COPY syntax
Previous Message Larry Rosenman 2002-10-16 21:13:00 Re: v7.3 Branched ...