| From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
| Cc: | PFC <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: More thoughts on sorting |
| Date: | 2009-08-01 21:01:59 |
| Message-ID: | 407d949e0908011401m61f292c3qd8a018510fffea91@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Martijn van Oosterhout<kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 09:37:11AM +0200, PFC wrote:
>> Actually, I think (see the bottom of my last email) that this would be a
>> good argument for the per-column COLLATE patch...
>
> Standard SQL COLLATE support is per column anyway, so just implementing
> that will solve all the problems anyway.
Well it's more flexible than that. You can specify the collation to
use in your order by clause or comparison operator. So even for the
same column it can be different for different queries.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2009-08-02 01:29:55 | Re: [PATCH] Implement (and document, and test) has_sequence_privilege() |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-08-01 20:05:17 | Re: PostgreSQL 8.4.1 ? |