> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Eisentraut
>
> Hiroshi Inoue writes:
>
> > Please look at my first question.
> > This depends on the assumption that '=' is equivalent in
> > any locale. Is it guaranteed ?
> > For example, ( 'a' = 'A' ) isn't allowed in any locale ?.
> >
> > And your answer was
> > The whole point here is not to rely on '='.
> >
> > Clearly your theory depends on the assumption that
> > If a = b in some locale then a = b in ASCII locale.
> >
> > And where does 'a' <> 'A' come from ?
> > The definition of '=' is a part of collating sequence.
> >
> > >
> > > > LIKE seems to use the collating sequence.
> > >
> > > No. The collating sequence defines the order of all possible strings.
> > > LIKE doesn't order anything.
> >
> > Again where does it come from ?
>
> Let me elaborate again:
>
> Now, if you look at the code that does the LIKE pattern matching you'll
> see that it does not use any locale features, it simply compares
> characters for equality based on their character codes, accounting for the
> wildcards. Consequentially, this whole operation has nothing to do with
> locales.
Oh I see your point.
Hmm * string1 = string2 * doesn't imply * string1 LIKE string2 * ?
Otherwise the current criterion of LIKE matching unwittingly assumes
that there's no locale that has the different definition of '=' from that of
ASCII locale. I don't think the current implementation is strictly right.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue