Horton

Re: [WIP] patch - Collation at database level

Michael Paesold <mpaesold@gmx.at>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Michael Paesold <mpaesold@gmx.at>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek.Kotala@Sun.COM>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>, Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>, Radek Strnad <radek.strnad@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2008-07-08T16:33:41Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Tom Lane wrote:

> Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek.Kotala@Sun.COM> writes:
>> Martijn van Oosterhout napsal(a):
>>> Not necessarily. pg_class is not shared yet without it you can't  
>>> even
>>> find pg_database. Same deal with pg_type. All it means is that
>>> pg_collation in template1 must contain all the collations used in
>>> template1, which shouldn't be hard to arrange.
>
>> I think, Collation situation is different,
>
> 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.  I wonder why we are allowing a
> nonstandard half-measure to drive our thinking, rather than solving  
> the
> real problem which is column-level collations.

Wouldn't you still need per-database and per-table default collations?  
At least MySQL does have such a concept.

Best Regards
Michael Paesold