On Sat, 2011-06-18 at 22:19 +0200, Florian Pflug wrote: > Yes, that seems necessary for consistency. That leaves the question > of what to do if someone tries to modify a textrange's collation with > a COLLATE clause. For example, > > For example, whats the result of > 'Ä' in '[A,Z']::textrange_german COLLATE 'C' > where 'Ä' is a german Umlaut-A which sorts after 'A' but before 'B' > in locale 'de_DE' but sorts after 'Z' in locale 'C'. (I'm assuming > that textrange_german was defined with collation 'de_DE'). > > With the set-based definition of ranges, the only sensible thing > is to simply ignore the COLLATE clause I think.
I think rejecting it makes more sense, so a range would not be a collatable type; it just happens to use collations of the subtype internally. Regards, Jeff Davis -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers