Re: PATCH: CITEXT 2.0 v3 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David E. Wheeler
Subject Re: PATCH: CITEXT 2.0 v3
Date
Msg-id 200EC059-5627-4942-8F0D-89B70C4FBF1E@kineticode.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PATCH: CITEXT 2.0 v3  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Jul 15, 2008, at 20:26, Tom Lane wrote:

> "David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com> writes:
>> So I guess my question is: what is wrong with the  properties for
>> citextsend/citextrecv
>
> [ checks catalogs... ] textsend and textrecv are marked STABLE not
> IMMUTABLE.  I am not totally sure about the reasoning offhand --- it
> might be because their behavior depends on client_encoding.

Thanks. Looks like maybe the xtypes docs need to be updated?

   http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/xtypes.html

Anyway, changing them to "STABLE STRICT" appears to have done the
trick (diff attached).

>> and what else might these failures be indicating
>> is wrong?
>
> I think the other diffs are okay, they just reflect the fact that
> you're
> depending on binary equivalence of text and citext.

Great, thanks. And with that, I think I'm just about ready to submit a
new version of the patch, coming up shortly.

Best,

David


Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Sushant Sinha
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Fragments in tsearch2 headline
Next
From: Tatsuo Ishii
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] WITH RECURSIVE updated to CVS TIP