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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
