Re: Removing SORTFUNC_LT/REVLT - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Martijn van Oosterhout
Subject Re: Removing SORTFUNC_LT/REVLT
Date
Msg-id 20051231205628.GB634@svana.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Removing SORTFUNC_LT/REVLT  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Dec 31, 2005 at 02:54:18PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> The example of case-insensitive sorting suggests that we need to assume
> that sort comparison functions can make finer-grained comparisons than
> the associated "equals" operator does.  The current infrastructure
> forces these to be exactly the same, but as long as we're busy
> reinventing stuff, we could have two comparison functions associated
> with a btree opclass: one that mimics the operators' behavior and one
> that makes finer-grained comparisons and defines the actual sort order.

Indeed, that's exactly the thought I had this afternoon, distiguish a
"collation" and a "comparison" function. It's certainly a lot easier to
implement than anything else I could think of....

Have a great New Year everyone,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout   <kleptog@svana.org>   http://svana.org/kleptog/
> Patent. n. Genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration. A patent is a
> tool for doing 5% of the work and then sitting around waiting for someone
> else to do the other 95% so you can sue them.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Removing SORTFUNC_LT/REVLT
Next
From: Greg Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: EINTR error in SunOS