Hi Laurenz, Tom, Peter,
Thanks for your suggestions. The practical solution seems to be to override comparison operators of char, varchar and
textdata types with UDFs that behave as Tom mentioned.
From: Peter Geoghegan [mailto:pg@bowt.ie]
> That said, the idea of an "EBCDIC collation" seems limiting. Why
> should a system like DB2 for the mainframe (that happens to use EBCDIC
> as its encoding) not have a more natural, human-orientated collation
> even while using EBCDIC? ISTM that the point of using the "C" locale
> (with EBDIC or with UTF-8 or with any other encoding) is to get a
> performance benefit where the actual collation's behavior doesn't
> matter much to users. Are you sure it's really important to be
> *exactly* compatible with EBCDIC order? As long as you're paying for a
> custom collation, why not just use a collation that is helpful to
> humans?
You are right. I'd like to ask the customer whether and why they need EBCDIC ordering.
Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa