| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: ExecBuildGroupingEqual versus collations |
| Date: | 2018-12-18 21:52:50 |
| Message-ID: | dbeb9123-1226-5431-f7c1-838187199952@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 14/12/2018 20:25, Tom Lane wrote:
> Now, it's certainly true that nameeq() doesn't need a collation spec
> today, any more than texteq() does, because both types legislate that
> equality is bitwise. But if we leave ExecBuildGroupingEqual like this,
> we're mandating that no type anywhere, ever, can have a
> collation-dependent notion of equality. Is that really a restriction
> we're comfortable with? citext is sort of the poster child here,
> because it already wishes it could have collation-dependent equality.
I have just posted my "insensitive collations" patch that contains code
to fix this.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-12-18 21:55:14 | Re: Collatability of type "name" |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-12-18 21:49:17 | still use IndexIsValid() etc. macros? |