Re: ALTER TYPE COLLATABLE?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: ALTER TYPE COLLATABLE? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 6650.1298047539@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: ALTER TYPE COLLATABLE? (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: ALTER TYPE COLLATABLE?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: > On tor, 2011-02-17 at 17:50 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> Is it time for a direct UPDATE on the pg_type row? If so, to what? I see >> pg_type.typcollation is supposed to be an OID, so how the heck does >> one map a bool CREATE TYPE parameter into the catalog entry? > It's 100, which is the OID of "default" in pg_collation. The value may > be different for domains. (Earlier versions of the feature had a > boolean column and a separate collation column for domains, but somehow > it turned out to be quite redundant.) While testing a fix for this, I observe that pg_dump is entirely broken on the subject, because it fails to dump anything at all about the typcollation property when dumping a base type. I also rather wonder exactly what pg_dump would dump to restore a value of pg_type.typcollation that's not either 0 or 100. In short: I think this feature is quite a few bricks shy of a load yet, and there's no point in my kluging something in citext until it settles down more. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: