On Sun, 2011-06-19 at 12:24 +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> Collation checking is generally done by the planner. I don't see why
> the input function should check, the result of an input function is by
> definition DEFAULT. It's up to the 'in' operator to check.
>
> Note that the whole idea of collation is not really supposed to be
> assigned to object for storage. How that can be resolved I'm not sure.
I think if we just say that it's a property of the range type
definition, then that's OK. It's similar to specifying a non-default
btree opclass for the range type -- it just changes which total order
the range type adheres to.
If you meant that the collation shouldn't be stored along with the value
itself, then I agree.
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
