Re: collation, arrays, and ranges
От | Jeff Davis |
---|---|
Тема | Re: collation, arrays, and ranges |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1315678002.7281.71.camel@jdavis обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: collation, arrays, and ranges (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 2011-09-10 at 13:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > So, I chose to represent that as a separate > > rngcollation and leave the typcollation 0. In other words, collation is > > a concept internal to that range type and fixed at type definition time. > > Range types are affected by their internal collation, but don't take > > part in the logic that passes collation through the type system. > > Should I read that as saying you want to add yet another column to > pg_type? I'd prefer not to do that. Seems to me we could still store > the value in typcollation, but just interpret the column a bit > differently depending on typtype. I added the column to pg_range (rngcollation), which seemed a little less invasive than either of the other options (either adding a new column to pg_type or overloading the existing one). I was worried about having the same column in pg_type mean two different things -- every caller of get_typcollation would need to be careful. Regards,Jeff Davis
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: