On Sat, Apr 25, 2026 at 6:24 PM Richard Guo <[email protected]> wrote: > 0001 wrapped the logic in subroutine collations_are_compatible().
I don't think that name is good. It sounds like a general claim about the two collations, but what the subroutine actually checks is much narrower: whether the two collations agree on what counts as equal. It has nothing to say about ordering, and two deterministic collations agree on = but can disagree on <. I renamed it to collations_agree_on_equality(), which seems a better name to me. And then I committed this patch and back-patched it to all supported branches. > 0002 fixed query_is_distinct_for(), using that subroutine. This patch changes the signature of query_is_distinct_for, which would be an ABI break on stable branches. So in back-patches I added a local function query_is_distinct_for_with_collations, which is a collation-aware verson of query_is_distinct_for, and retained query_is_distinct_for as a thin wrapper that calls that new local function. I also committed and back-patched this patch. - Richard
