My interpretation of collation for range types is different than that
for arrays, so I'm presenting it here in case someone has an objection.
An array type has the same typcollation as its element type. This makes
sense, because comparison between arrays are affected by the COLLATE
clause.
Compar
On Sat, 2011-09-10 at 13:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > So, I chose to represent that as a separate
> > rngcollation and leave the typcollation 0. In other words, collation is
> > a concept internal to that range type and fixed at type definition time.
> > Range types are affected by their internal
Jeff Davis writes:
> My interpretation of collation for range types is different than that
> for arrays, so I'm presenting it here in case someone has an objection.
> An array type has the same typcollation as its element type. This makes
> sense, because comparison between arrays are affected by
My interpretation of collation for range types is different than that
for arrays, so I'm presenting it here in case someone has an objection.
An array type has the same typcollation as its element type. This makes
sense, because comparison between arrays are affected by the COLLATE
clause.
Compar
