Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Different collates requires different plans - so using dynamic SQL is much >> more correct. >> It is same like using variables as columns or tablenames. > Right -- I get it, and I understand the planner issues. But the > amount of revision that goes into a database that internationalizes > can be pretty large. To do it right, any static sql that involves > string ordering can't be used. pl/sql also can't be used. ISTM this > is impolite to certain coding styles. Well, it's the way the SQL committee specified collations to work, so we're pretty much stuck with that syntax. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
