Re: [HACKERS] strcmp() tie-breaker for identical ICU-collated strings

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Peter Geoghegan
Тема Re: [HACKERS] strcmp() tie-breaker for identical ICU-collated strings
Дата
Msg-id CAH2-Wzm=7YmZQmGYq_e2JezY4JCtegvN9HZ4R2cF8T1wPHv4Gw@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] strcmp() tie-breaker for identical ICU-collated strings  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] strcmp() tie-breaker for identical ICU-collated strings  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: [HACKERS] strcmp() tie-breaker for identical ICU-collated strings  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Дерево обсуждения 
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Thomas Munro
<thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Why should ICU be any different than the system provider in this
> respect?  In both cases, we have a two-level comparison: first we use
> the collation-aware comparison, and then as a tie breaker, we use a
> binary comparison.  If we didn't do a binary comparison as a
> tie-breaker, wouldn't the result be logically incompatible with the =
> operator, which does a binary comparison?

I agree with that assessment.


-- 
Peter Geoghegan

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Thomas Munro
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] strcmp() tie-breaker for identical ICU-collated strings
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] quiet conversion warning in DatumGetFloat4