Tom Lane wrote:
> Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek.Kotala@Sun.COM> writes:
>> Martijn van Oosterhout napsal(a):
>>> Not necessarily. pg_class is not shared yet without it you can't
>>> even
>>> find pg_database. Same deal with pg_type. All it means is that
>>> pg_collation in template1 must contain all the collations used in
>>> template1, which shouldn't be hard to arrange.
>
>> I think, Collation situation is different,
>
> All the argument here is based on the premise that we should have
> database-level collation specifications, which AFAICS is not required
> nor suggested by the SQL spec. I wonder why we are allowing a
> nonstandard half-measure to drive our thinking, rather than solving
> the
> real problem which is column-level collations.
Wouldn't you still need per-database and per-table default collations?
At least MySQL does have such a concept.
Best Regards
Michael Paesold
