Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Sounds like pie in the sky to me.  Exactly how do you think that
> > ICU will magically mask the fundamental semantic inconsistency?
> I am hoping ICU will allow us to see the next greatest value for that
> character.

As Tom says, it's a semantic inconsistency, not a lack of features.  
Collation (sorting of strings) takes the entire string into account, 
pattern matching compares character by character.  For example, some 
collations compare strings from back to front, whereas a pattern 
matching expression could never make sense of that.  The SQL standard 
actually does not draw that distinction, but, well, it's broken.

Using separate operator classes for separate semantic interpretations of 
data seems to be exactly the right solution.

Peter Eisentraut

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
      joining column's datatypes do not match

Reply via email to