Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> writes: > My interpretation of collation for range types is different than that > for arrays, so I'm presenting it here in case someone has an objection.
> An array type has the same typcollation as its element type. This makes > sense, because comparison between arrays are affected by the COLLATE > clause. > Comparison between ranges should not be affected by the COLLATE clause > (as we discussed). Check. > So, I chose to represent that as a separate > rngcollation and leave the typcollation 0. In other words, collation is > a concept internal to that range type and fixed at type definition time. > Range types are affected by their internal collation, but don't take > part in the logic that passes collation through the type system. Should I read that as saying you want to add yet another column to pg_type? I'd prefer not to do that. Seems to me we could still store the value in typcollation, but just interpret the column a bit differently depending on typtype. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers