Re: [HACKERS] sketchy partcollation handling

On 2017/06/07 1:08, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 10:18 PM, Amit Langote
>> <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>>> BTW, the places which check whether the collation to store a dependency
>>> for is the database default collation don't need to do that.  I mean the
>>> following code block in all of these places:
>>>
>>> /* The default collation is pinned, so don't bother recording it */
>>> if (OidIsValid(attr->attcollation) &&
>>> attr->attcollation != DEFAULT_COLLATION_OID)
> 
>> We could go change them all, but I guess I don't particularly see the point.
> 
> That's an intentional measure to save the catalog activity involved in
> finding out that the default collation is pinned.  It's not *necessary*,
> sure, but it's a useful and easy optimization.

I see.  Thanks for explaining.

Regards,
Amit