On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 2016-01-19 20:04 GMT+01:00 Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@xxxxxxxxx>: >> >> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > 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. >> >> I understand. It's water under the bridge if a strxfrm() wrapper >> could deliver the goods here. Changing: >> >> ORDER BY foo >> to >> ORDER BY strxfrm(foo, _CollationLocale) > > > this mechanism was used more time in Czech multilanguage applications > > Orafce.nlssort use it. > > https://github.com/orafce/orafce/blob/master/others.c wow! that's perfect! -- thanks. merlin -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
