Re: BUG #14064: Sort order of bytea, etc. not defined
От | Chris Pacejo |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #14064: Sort order of bytea, etc. not defined |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAC8iE5jkUyo-Kmzh-FzLQzpe6TOLnhSgJbJw8FmHto5GbK=PbQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #14064: Sort order of bytea, etc. not defined (Pavel Golub <pavel@microolap.com>) |
Список | pgsql-bugs |
I'm not sure I understand? I know the data is bytea, how would casting it to another type help? (I don't think casting bytea is even possible?) On May 4, 2016 2:16 AM, "Pavel Golub" <pavel@microolap.com> wrote: > Hello, Cpacejo. > > You wrote: > > ccc> The following bug has been logged on the website: > > ccc> Bug reference: 14064 > ccc> Logged by: Chris Pacejo > ccc> Email address: cpacejo@clearskydata.com > ccc> PostgreSQL version: 9.5.2 > ccc> Operating system: any > ccc> Description: > > ccc> The documentation does not define (nor call out as undefined) the > sort order > ccc> of bytea, bit varying, and other sequence types. While the bytea > sort order > ccc> is unsurprising (a < b if a is a prefix of b, but b > a if a prefix > of b > > ccc> the same length prefix of a), it is not the only such "unsurprising" > sort > ccc> order, and it would be helpful to have the guarantee that this sort > order > ccc> can be relied upon (especially in concert with range types). > > > > You shouls use explicit type casting for such types. > > -- > With best wishes, > Pavel mailto:pavel@gf.microolap.com > >
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: