Re: Collations versus record-returning functions
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Collations versus record-returning functions |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 14254.1300553101@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Collations versus record-returning functions (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote: > ISTM there are basically three things we might do about this: > (1) Decide that the patch's behavior is correct and what's embodied in > the regression expected file is wrong. > (2) Allow collations to propagate up through nodes that deliver > noncollatable outputs. > (3) Decide that composite types are collatable. I thought of another possibility, which is to special-case field selection from a function-returning-composite, ie make it look through the function node and use the function's input collation. FieldSelect needs to be a special case in the collation assignment code anyway because of the possibility of taking the collation from the field declaration instead of the input, so this is not *quite* as ugly as it first sounds. It's still ugly, but it makes that regression test pass with only a very localized change. So I will do it like that for now until someone comes up with an argument for another choice. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: