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

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?
Date
Msg-id 488E2130.6070701@dunslane.net
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

Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>   
>> ISTM that Tom's objection is really that citext is a hack, and that it 
>> will actually make it harder for us to get to a collation-based case 
>> insensitive comparison.
>>     
>
> Well, it won't make it harder to implement collations; but I worry that
> people who have been relying on the citext syntax will have a hard time
> migrating to collations.  Perhaps if someone did the legwork to
> determine exactly what that conversion would look like, it would assuage
> the fear.
>
>   

I kind of assumed we would do it by implementing the COLLATE clause of 
the CREATE DOMAIN statement.

cheers

andrew


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?