Benny Amorsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "TL" == Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > TL> Personally I don't find the argument about "someday we might want > TL> to support measurements in millibits" to be convincing at all, and > TL> certainly it seems weaker than the argument that "units should be > TL> case insensitive because everything else in this file is". The SQL > TL> spec has to be considered a more relevant controlling precedent > TL> for us than the SI units spec, and there are no case-sensitive > TL> keywords in SQL.
> Units simply are not case sensitive. They are just a more or less > random collection of preexisting symbols, because that was easier than > drawing up entirely new ones. Not all are English letters, for one Âµ > is not. You mean "are case sensitive" right? This is not news. The point I'm basically making is that it's not going to hurt us to restrict GUC to supporting a subset of all-possible-units that can be treated case-insensitively. We're already going to restrict the allowed character set: I can guarantee you that Âµ, or anything else outside 7-bit ASCII, will never be accepted. It's just not worth the trouble of dealing with multiple possible encodings. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match