Re: orderRules() now a bad idea?

Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> > Tom Lane writes:
> >> It looks like NAME comparison uses strcmp (actually strncmp).  So it'll
> >> be numeric byte-code order.
> >> There's no particular reason we couldn't make that be strcoll instead,
> >> I suppose, except perhaps speed.
> 
> > But how will this work when we have per-column/datum collation order?
> > And what about languages that don't have any useful collation order for
> > their alphabets (far east)?  ISTM that a globally viable feature of this
> > sort would have to sort by something numeric.
> 
> I'm confused; are you saying that NAME's sort behavior is good as-is?
> If not, what would you have it do differently?

Yes, exotic ordering of rules just doesn't seem warranted.  I think it
should match the ordering of pg_class.name, which is strcmp() already.

Let's do ASCII ordering (strcmp) and see how things go.  

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073