Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 488E267D.5080705@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes: > >> Tom Lane wrote: >> >>> Well, it won't make it harder to implement collations; but I worry that >>> people who have been relying on the citext syntax will have a hard time >>> migrating to collations. Perhaps if someone did the legwork to >>> determine exactly what that conversion would look like, it would assuage >>> the fear. >>> > > >> I kind of assumed we would do it by implementing the COLLATE clause of >> the CREATE DOMAIN statement. >> > > But to define such a domain, you'd have to commit to a case-insensitive > version of a specific collation, no? citext currently means "case > insensitive version of whatever the database's default collation is". > This might be worrying over nothing significant, but I'm not > convinced... > > > Well, that's all we've got right now. Presumably as David says we could leave citext sitting in contrib for compatibility reasons, once we get more fine-grained collation support. I guess, too, we can add all sorts of warnings about citext not being future-proof. cheers andrew
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: