On Thu, 8 Apr 2004, Tom Lane wrote: > See my previous point: the index does not actually fail, in our current > implementation, because strcoll() is unaffected by the database's > encoding setting.
How can it be? If I have a utf-8 template1 and a table with an index sorted according to the utf-8 characters in some locale. Then this table and index is copied into a Latin1 database. When I interpret these bytes as Latin1 in the index, the ordering does not have to be the same as it was before and the index can not be used. I don't understand what you mean when you say that strcoll() is unaffected by the database's encoding setting. It interprets characters, how can it not be? If it works it must be something more going on that I don't know/understand yet. If I am I would be happy to be corrected, if not we have a more broken system then we expected before. The objection to a per database locale is that we can not copy a table from the template into the database since the index would not be valid anymore. To me that is solvable by just reindexing. The current problem with encodings does not look solvable at all to me (except to not copy tables when we can not reencode the strings). -- /Dennis Björklund ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])