> 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
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
No comments:
Post a Comment