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

From David E. Wheeler
Subject Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?
Date
Msg-id 6E148908-DE27-48D0-B8B2-291BE854096E@kineticode.com
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 Jul 28, 2008, at 12:29, 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.

Well, there is no syntax for citext. Right now, lots of folks are  
using LOWER() all over the place, in indexes and queries, to get the  
behavior implemented by citext, and that will be a *lot* harder to  
migrate from than citext will be. To upgrade from citext, I expect  
that what one will have to do is to alter the column to change its  
data type from citext to TEXT + collation.

Am I missing something here?

Thanks,

David



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Gierth
Date:
Subject: Re: WITH RECUSIVE patches 0723
Next
From: David Fetter
Date:
Subject: Re: window function v03 against HEAD