Tom Lane wrote: > Perhaps the fast-path check is a bad idea, but fixing this is not > just a matter of removing that. If we subscribe to strcoll's > worldview then we have to conclude that *text strings are not > hashable*, because strings that should be "equal" may have different > hash codes.
By the way, I have always been concerned about the feature of Unicode that you can write logically equivalent strings using different code-point sequences. Namely, you often have the option of writing an accented letter using the "legacy" single codepoint (like in ISO 8859-something) or alternatively using accept plus "base letter" as two code points. Collating systems should treat them the same, so hashing the byte values won't work anyway. This is a more extreme case of "tyty" vs. "tty" because using a proper rendering system, those Unicode strings should look the same to the naked eye. Therefore, I'm doubtful that using a binary comparison as tie-breaker is proper behavior. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
