On Jul 21, 2008, at 13:19, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> I was going to write some stuff about citext anyway. Quite apart
> from the above considerations I'm still a bit concerned about its
> performance characteristics. And I'm not sure we really want all the
> baggage that David is proposing to bring along with it. Is it an
> advance to force the regex_replace "i" flag for such a type? I can
> imagine cases where I might want it to sort insensitively, but be
> able to do case sensitive regex ops on it. It's not as if the user
> can't supply the flag. So right now I don't think citext should be
> included, because there are still issues to sort out, if for no
> other reason.
I'm happy to work with folks to get them figured out, but at the end,
there may be some differing opinions. If there's a reference
implementation that could be checked (how does a case-insensitive
collation work in another database?), that would be fine.
You can use the "c" flag to get case-sensitive comparison with the
regex functions, though not with the operators. (Maybe this should be
moved to a separate thread?)
Best,
David
