Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Martijn van Oosterhout
Subject Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?
Date
Msg-id 20080728204026.GB24856@svana.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 03:49:21PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I kind of assumed we would do it by implementing the COLLATE clause of
> > the CREATE DOMAIN statement.
>
> But to define such a domain, you'd have to commit to a case-insensitive
> version of a specific collation, no?  citext currently means "case
> insensitive version of whatever the database's default collation is".
> This might be worrying over nothing significant, but I'm not
> convinced...

In the version of COLLATE I did you had variations on locales
(asc/desc, case (in)sensetive) which could be selected. So you could
make COLLATE CASE_INSENSITIVE actually just modify the existing
collation.

That said, this is no more of a deal than that text also has a default
collation. You talk about "the database's default collation" but with
proper collation support that statement is meaningless. A database has
no collation, only types, expressions and columns do.

Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout   <kleptog@svana.org>   http://svana.org/kleptog/
> Please line up in a tree and maintain the heap invariant while
> boarding. Thank you for flying nlogn airlines.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Gregory Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: WITH RECUSIVE patches 0723
Next
From: "Stephen R. van den Berg"
Date:
Subject: Re: Protocol 3, Execute, maxrows to return, impact?