Tom Lane wrote:
Zdenek Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
