On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> writes: >> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Different collates requires different plans - so using dynamic SQL is much >>> more correct. >>> It is same like using variables as columns or tablenames. > >> Right -- I get it, and I understand the planner issues. But the >> amount of revision that goes into a database that internationalizes >> can be pretty large. To do it right, any static sql that involves >> string ordering can't be used. pl/sql also can't be used. ISTM this >> is impolite to certain coding styles. > > Well, it's the way the SQL committee specified collations to work, so > we're pretty much stuck with that syntax.
I understand. It's water under the bridge if a strxfrm() wrapper could deliver the goods here. Changing:
ORDER BY foo to ORDER BY strxfrm(foo, _CollationLocale)
this mechanism was used more time in Czech multilanguage applications
is a nice escape route where _CollationLocale gets suddenly brought on to the table. It's going to be awfully slow, but in many cases that's acceptable. At least I think so -- I have to play with it. merlin