Alexander Pyhalov <a.pyhalov@postgrespro.ru> writes:
> The only thing I'm confused about is in T_CaseTestExpr case - how can it
> be that CaseTestExpr collation doesn't match case_arg_cxt->collation ?
> Do we we need to inspect only case_arg_cxt->state? Can we assert that
> collation == case_arg_cxt->collation?
Perhaps, but:
(1) I'm disinclined to make this code look different from the otherwise-
identical coding elsewhere in foreign_expr_walker.
(2) That would create a hard assumption that foreign_expr_walker's
conclusions about the collation of a subexpression match those of
assign_query_collations. I'm not quite sure I believe that (and if
it's true, why aren't we just relying on exprCollation?). Anyway,
if we're to have an assertion that it's true, it should be in some
place that's a lot less out-of-the-way than CaseTestExpr, because
if the assumption gets violated it might be a long time till we
notice.
So I think we're best off to just write it the way I did, at least
so far as this patch is concerned. If we want to rethink the way
collation gets calculated here, that would be material for a
separate patch.
regards, tom lane
