On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 09:05:11PM +0200, Zdenek Kotala wrote: > >All the argument here is based on the premise that we should have > >database-level collation specifications, which AFAICS is not required > >nor suggested by the SQL spec. > > Yeah, it is not required, but by my opinion it should be derived from > CREATE SCHEMA statement. There is following item: > > --- SQL ANSI 2003 page 520 --- > > 5) If <schema character set specification> is not specified, then a <schema
Careful, this is a 'character set specification" which has (almost) nothing to do with collation. It's closer to the encoding field, which is already in pg_database. The issue with having a "default database collation" is that it's unclear where it would be used. In the end the collation is defined by the types and domains. Columns inherit from the types. I think the only senseible definition is to decide that all the text/varchar/char types inherit from the database. It's not in the spec but I think it does make easier to decide what the default collation is. As an alternative to: ALTER TYPE text SET DEFAULT COLLATION TO foo; <repeat for all other text types> > I try to determine how to implement collation itself - collation catalog > structure and content and how to create new collation. Column-level > collation is nice but until we will not have basic infrastructure we cannot > start implemented it. I agree that this patch includes much basic work that needs to be done for full collation support. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > Please line up in a tree and maintain the heap invariant while > boarding. Thank you for flying nlogn airlines.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
