From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Zdenek Kotala" <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: PATCH: CITEXT 2.0 |
Date: | 2008-07-07 21:05:24 |
Message-ID: | BAC3302A-D88F-49C9-9E7D-596C347D9649@kineticode.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jul 7, 2008, at 13:59, Gregory Stark wrote:
> Of course the obvious case of two equivalent strings with different
> bytes
> would be two strings which differ only in case in a collation which
> doesn't
> distinguish based on case. So you obviously can't take this route
> for citext.
Well, to be fair, citext isn't imposing a collation. It's just calling
str_tolower() on strings before passing them on to varstr_cmp() or
strncmp() to compare.
> I don't think you have to worry about the problem that cause
> Postgres to make
> this change. IIRC it was someone comparing strings like paths and
> usernames
> and getting false positives because they were in a Turkish locale
> which found
> certain sequences of characters to be insignificant for ordering.
> Someone
> who's using a citext data type has obviously decided that's
> precisely the kind
> of behaviour they want.
Hrm. So in your opinion, strncmp() could be used for all comparisons
by citext, rather than varstr_cmp()?
Thanks,
David
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Hammond | 2008-07-07 21:08:03 | Re: the un-vacuumable table |
Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-07-07 20:59:16 | Re: PATCH: CITEXT 2.0 |