Tatsuo Ishii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Oh, I see. So the question still remains: can a MULTIBYTE-aware backend > ever use a sort order different from strcmp() order? (That is, not as > a result of LOCALE, but just because of the non-SQL-ASCII encoding.) >> >> According to the code, no, because varstr_cmp() doesn't pay attention to >> the multibyte status. Presumably strcmp() and strcoll() don't either. > Right. OK, so I guess this comes down to a judgment call: should we insert the check in the non-MULTIBYTE case, or not? I still think it's safest to do so, but I'm not sure what you want to do. regards, tom lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Shouldn't non-MULTIBYTE backend refuse to s... Peter Eisentraut
- Re: [HACKERS] Shouldn't non-MULTIBYTE backend refuse... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Shouldn't non-MULTIBYTE backend re... Tatsuo Ishii
- Re: [HACKERS] Shouldn't non-MULTIBYTE backen... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Shouldn't non-MULTIBYTE ba... Tatsuo Ishii
- Re: [HACKERS] Shouldn't non-MULTIBY... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Shouldn't non-MUL... Tatsuo Ishii
- Re: [HACKERS] Shouldn't non-MUL... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Shouldn't non-MUL... Peter Eisentraut
- Re: [HACKERS] Shouldn't non-MUL... Tatsuo Ishii
- Re: [HACKERS] Shouldn't non-MUL... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Shouldn't non-MUL... Tatsuo Ishii
- Re: [HACKERS] Shouldn't non-MULTIBYTE backend refuse to s... Tatsuo Ishii