Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
---|
From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Malcontent null <malcontent(at)msgto(dot)com> |
Cc: | Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Why Not MySQL? |
Date: | 2000-05-03 15:12:21 |
Message-ID: | 7573.957366741@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Malcontent null <malcontent(at)msgto(dot)com> writes:
> "In a nutshell I want to use postgres as a back end to an access
> database. This means that all collation done by postgres musht be case
> insensitive including like clauses."
Well, it'd certainly be easy enough to make a case-insensitive set of
text comparison functions and LIKE comparator (sounds like you already
found out where they live, so go to it). The $64 question is exactly
when where and how to invoke them. For your immediate purpose I suppose
you can just alter the standard operators, and thus produce a server
that can do nothing *but* case-insensitive text comparisons. That will
certainly not be acceptable as a general-usage answer, however.
There has been a good deal of talk about supporting more of SQL92's
national-character and collation features in future releases. What
might ultimately happen is that we offer a case-insensitive collation
mode that could be assigned to particular text columns, or even
made the default for a whole database. Not sure how far down the road
that is.
In the meantime, there's no shame in running a locally-hacked server.
That's one of the things that open source is for, after all ;-)
regards, tom lane
From: | Malcontent null <malcontent(at)msgto(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Why Not MySQL? |
Date: | 2018-05-03 22:22:27 |
Message-ID: | 7590146.957334947530.JavaMail.root@mua1.msgto.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> wrote:
>
>Actually, I'd suggest you state the problem you're trying to solve first,
>rather
>than present the reasons you think PG can't handle the problem without
>showing your
>hand. Saying, "how can I implement the following solution to an unstated
>problem"
>rather than simply stating the problem seems ... well, impolite at first
>glance.
I admit that I may not be the clearest thinking individual on this planet but I thought I stated my problem in the original post to the best of my ability. I certainly wasn't trying to be rude. Here is a snippet from my original post.
"In a nutshell I want to use postgres as a back end to an access
database. This means that all collation done by postgres musht be case
insensitive including like clauses."
I left the all the spelling mistakes in place :)
----------
Message To Spammers -- Game Over! Get spam-free email at http://www.MsgTo.com