On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 4:22 AM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: >> Not sure what to do about this. Is it okay to suppose that collation >> can be ignored when matching to a collation-less index? > > That sounds correct on first reading. >
Doesn't this depend on the semantics of the ? operator? Hypothetically if there was an operator like ?< which returned a list of hstore keys that were < the argument then ?< would indeed depend on the collation used even if hstore didn't do collations. If there was an index type on hstore which could handle ?< then it would need to have the right collation to be usable. Of course we know ? doesn't depend on the collation but where is that information? I suspect we should actually have an explicit flag for each operator. -- greg -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
