Re: OCTET_LENGTH is wrong

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> 
> Tatsuo Ishii writes:
> 
> > > I don't think so.  The sort order is independent of the character
> > > encoding, and vice versa.  It must be, because
> >
> > This seems different from SQL's CREATE COLLATION syntax.
> > >From SQL99's CREATE COLLATION definition:
> >
> >               CREATE COLLATION <collation name> FOR
> >               <character set specification>
> >                 FROM <existing collation name>
> >                   [ <pad characteristic> ]
> >
> > So it seems a collation depends on a character set.
> 
> I see.  But that really doesn't have anything to do with reality.  In
> fact, it completely undermines the transparency of the character set
> encoding that we're probably trying to achieve.

COLLATION being independent of character set is a separate problem 
from COLLATION being _defined_ on character set - without a known 
character set I can't see how you can define it. 
i.e. "COLLACTION for any 8-bit charset" just does not make sense.

-----------------
Hannu