Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Different collates requires different plans - so using dynamic SQL is much
>> more correct.
>> It is same like using variables as columns or tablenames.
> Right -- I get it, and I understand the planner issues. But the
> amount of revision that goes into a database that internationalizes
> can be pretty large. To do it right, any static sql that involves
> string ordering can't be used. pl/sql also can't be used. ISTM this
> is impolite to certain coding styles.
Well, it's the way the SQL committee specified collations to work, so
we're pretty much stuck with that syntax.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
