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). 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. Comments? 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