Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Tom Lane writes: > >> It looks like NAME comparison uses strcmp (actually strncmp). So it'll > >> be numeric byte-code order. > >> There's no particular reason we couldn't make that be strcoll instead, > >> I suppose, except perhaps speed. > > > But how will this work when we have per-column/datum collation order? > > And what about languages that don't have any useful collation order for > > their alphabets (far east)? ISTM that a globally viable feature of this > > sort would have to sort by something numeric. > > I'm confused; are you saying that NAME's sort behavior is good as-is? > If not, what would you have it do differently?
Yes, exotic ordering of rules just doesn't seem warranted. I think it should match the ordering of pg_class.name, which is strcmp() already. Let's do ASCII ordering (strcmp) and see how things go. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
