Dennis Bjorklund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, 30 Oct 2004, Tom Lane wrote: >> Why would we not keep this information right in the string values?
> We could, but then we would need to parse it every time. Huh? We'd store it in the most compact pre-parsed form we could think of; probably some sort of index into a list of supported character sets and collations. (This is not so different from representing timezones inside timestamptz values, instead of using a global setting.) > Are you worried about performance or is it the smaller change that you > want? I'm worried about the fact that instead of, say, one length(text) function, we would now have to have a different one for every characterset/collation. Not to mention one for every possible N in varchar(N). Making those properties part of a function's parameter signature is unworkable on its face --- it'll cause an exponential explosion in the number of pg_proc entries, and probably make it impossible to resolve a unique candidate function in many situations. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings