raf wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> > On tis, 2011-01-18 at 10:33 +1100, raf wrote:
> > > p.s. if anyone in debian locale land is listening,
> > > 'E' does not sort before ','. what were you thinking? :-)
> >
> > What is actually happening is that the punctuation is sorted in a second
> > p
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On tis, 2011-01-18 at 10:33 +1100, raf wrote:
> > p.s. if anyone in debian locale land is listening,
> > 'E' does not sort before ','. what were you thinking? :-)
>
> What is actually happening is that the punctuation is sorted in a second
> pass after the letters. Whic
On tis, 2011-01-18 at 10:33 +1100, raf wrote:
> p.s. if anyone in debian locale land is listening,
> 'E' does not sort before ','. what were you thinking? :-)
What is actually happening is that the punctuation is sorted in a second
pass after the letters. Which is both correct according to the re
Tom Lane wrote:
> raf writes:
> > the behaviour i expect (and see on macosx-10.6.6) is:
>
> >id | name
> > +---
> > 4 | CLARK
> > 2 | CLARK, PETER
> > 3 | CLARKE
> > 1 | CLARKE, DAVID
>
> > the behaviour i don't expect but see anyway (on debian-5.
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 02:19:14PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> No, not particularly. Sort order is determined by lc_collate
> not lc_messages. Unfortunately it's entirely possible that OSX
> will give you a different sort order than Linux even for similarly
> named lc_collate settings. About the o
raf writes:
> the behaviour i expect (and see on macosx-10.6.6) is:
>id | name
> +---
> 4 | CLARK
> 2 | CLARK, PETER
> 3 | CLARKE
> 1 | CLARKE, DAVID
> the behaviour i don't expect but see anyway (on debian-5.0) is:
>id | name
> --
