Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От David E. Wheeler
Тема Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?
Дата
Msg-id 6E148908-DE27-48D0-B8B2-291BE854096E@kineticode.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Jul 28, 2008, at 12:29, Tom Lane wrote:

> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>> ISTM that Tom's objection is really that citext is a hack, and that  
>> it
>> will actually make it harder for us to get to a collation-based case
>> insensitive comparison.
>
> Well, it won't make it harder to implement collations; but I worry  
> that
> people who have been relying on the citext syntax will have a hard  
> time
> migrating to collations.  Perhaps if someone did the legwork to
> determine exactly what that conversion would look like, it would  
> assuage
> the fear.

Well, there is no syntax for citext. Right now, lots of folks are  
using LOWER() all over the place, in indexes and queries, to get the  
behavior implemented by citext, and that will be a *lot* harder to  
migrate from than citext will be. To upgrade from citext, I expect  
that what one will have to do is to alter the column to change its  
data type from citext to TEXT + collation.

Am I missing something here?

Thanks,

David



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Andrew Gierth
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: WITH RECUSIVE patches 0723
Следующее
От: David Fetter
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: window function v03 against HEAD